Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [25 June],

That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 10, to leave out '85' and insert '85E', instead thereof:

Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 18 July at Seven o'clock.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.

To be considered on Thursday 19 July.

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 19 July.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 19 July.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 July.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. Speaker: As the remaining seven private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 July.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 July.

SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 July.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 July.

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 July.

INTERIM REPORT ON THE MAGUIRE CASE

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Interim Report on the Maguire Case: The Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the convictions arising out of the bomb attacks in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974, by the Right honourable Sir John May.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Home Secretary to answer Question 1, I wish to make a brief statement. During the exchanges in the House yesterday, reference was made to the possibility of the Maguire case being raised at Home Office questions today. I am informed that. at 11 o'clock this morning the case was formally referred to the Court of Appeal. It is therefore now sub judice, and in accordance with the resolution of the House relating to sub judice matters I must ask hon. Members not to refer to it during questions today.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I first make it clear that the Opposition accept, without qualification, the principle that the House must neither influence the courts on individual decisions nor appear to be attempting to do so? That being said, we are presented this afternoon with a real denial of hon. Members' rights. At 2.30 pm today the Home Secretary published the interim report from Sir John May. Everybody in the world is entitled to comment on it except the British House of Commons. That is intolerable, particularly as yesterday you, Mr. Speaker, told hon. Members, in perfectly good faith, that an opportunity for raising these matters might. arise today. Will you confirm that the reason why your proper prohibition applies concerns not the way in which the May report was published but the simple fact that the Home Secretary chose to refer the Maguire case to the Court of Appeal this morning? Will you further confirm that had he chosen to refer it this afternoon, the House would not have been denied its proper rights? As the Home Secretary has behaved in that way, both sides of the House would welcome your guidance on what can be done to preserve our proper rights.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House is aware that I answered a question yesterday saying that I was going to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. In those circumstances, it is somewhat difficult to see how I could fail to do that which I said I would do. I know that you, Mr. Speaker.


have some latitude in these matters, and if you would allow me some latitude I shall do my best to answer questions on the point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter is clearly sub judice, and it is an important constitutional principle that Members of the Legislature should not pronounce on the guilt or innocence of individuals facing criminal charges during the course of their trial or appeal.

Mr. Waddington: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I would not challenge that proposition for one moment, but I am wondering whether it would be possible for me, in answer to questions, to give the grounds on which Sir John May decided that it would be right to ask me to refer the case.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that that would be in order under our sub judice rules. It would be an evaluation of the matters before the Appeal Court.

Mr. Maclennan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty that the House is in this afternoon stems from the fact that the Secretary of State, in making his answer yesterday, did not at the same time publish the interim report and make a statement. That would have enabled the House to ask him questions about it at that time before the matter of sub judice arose. This situation is entirely due to the Home Secretary.

Sir John Wheeler: Further to that point or order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I am the constituency Member of Parliament representing the Maguire family, so I am especially familiar with the circumstances of the case. The Maguire family are modest people who seek only that this issue is proceeded with in the proper judicial way. I have no cause to raise any point on the Floor of the House this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I have made—[Interruption.] Order. I have made my ruling on this matter. It is important that we uphold the major and important constitutional principles regarding matters which are sub judice. We should proceed with Question Time.

Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to pursue the matter further—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. I hope that my hon. Friends will take the same course so that we can pursue questions. I rise only to clarify the request made to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Home Secretary. As I understand it, the Home Secretary, in a mood of apparent reasonableness, asked whether the rule could in some way be eroded. My understanding is that the Home Secretary was, like me, told before he came to the House that no erosion was possible. Posing in that way does him no credit.

Mr. Stanbrook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it correct that the Home Secretary has expressed the position correctly on this matter because the essence of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being affected in their consideration by external comment? It does not apply in respect of the same matters to a court of learned judges who are well enabled professionally to discard such matters and to disregard public comment.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the House—and I share the concern expressed on the matter—that I have looked most

carefully at this issue. I am satisfied that the sub judice rule does apply to this matter. We must uphold the sub judice rules of the House.

Mr. Waddington: I think that I might be able to help the House because I am anxious, first, to do what is correct and, secondly, to follow the precedents set by my predecessors. My right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary made a statement in the case of the Guildford Four after the decision had been made by the Court of Appeal. I am perfectly prepared to say here and now that I shall be more than willing to make a statement at that juncture.

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this on a different matter?

Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said precisely the opposite to what he has just said. He said that, as Home Office questions were today, hon. Members would be able to ask all the questions. Yesterday, there was a written question No. 220. The question and the answer came from the Home Secretary, yet now we are forestalled by the Home Secretary in a squalid and crude manoeuvre.

Mr. Speaker: We should get on with Question Time now.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Pub Bombings

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the nine Surrey police officers who were in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings have been indentified.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 30 October 1989, it is not known whether any Surrey officers were in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings, although I understand that a team of nine Surrey officers was in the west midlands area at the time. That is among the matters relating to the case of the Birmingham pub bombings which are currently under investigation by the Devon and Cornwall police on behalf of the chief constable of the West Midlands police and we await their report.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister make the names of those policemen available to the solicitors acting for the people convicted of the Guildford pub bombings and to the solicitors acting for the Birmingham Six? Will he try to find out exactly what they were doing in the area at that time?

Mr. Patten: Making known the names of the police officers could do two things: first, I am advised that it could hinder the police in the conduct of their examination, which I am sure no hon. Member would want; secondly, it could lead to the integrity and probity of a number of individual police officers being questioned


unfairly. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that it is right to try to put right any injustices if they have occurred. However, in seeking to do that, one should not inadvertently thereby cause other potential injustices to occur, although I know that that is not the hon. Lady's intention.

Dame Jill Knight: Can my right hon. Friend suggest why Opposition Members constantly seek to denigrate the police while frequently failing to acknowledge that the Birmingham bombing crime, which killed many people and injured far more, was a dastardly crime? Opposition Members claim to know who committed that crime, but shield them and fail to provide evidence such as the fact that one of the bombers had in his possession a receipt for six cheap alarm clocks to make the bombs.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend represents a west midlands constituency and I entirely agree with her that the West Midlands police and all serving police officers throughout the United Kingdom deserve the support of all hon. Members in the House. In response to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I believe that it is important that all hon. Members should make available to the investigating authorities information that they say is available to them. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has pursued a number of cases with great interest. During an Adjournment debate on 14 June he said that he had the names of people who could assist the police with their inquiries. To the best of my knowledge, he has not yet made those names available.

Ms. Short: Does the Minister know why his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) seeks to suggest that anyone who seeks justice and to ensure that anybody who is wrongly convicted should be properly freed is somehow guilty of maligning the police? Does not he think that that shows that the hon. Lady has little confidence in British justice and is willing to see innocent people wrongly held in prison?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and I and all hon. Members should have the maximum confidence in British justice and in the British police. During our search for evidence of miscarriages, no matter how passionately we feel, we should make it clear that we support the basic fundamental right and duty of British justice and of the British police to do what they can to ensure that we live in a stable society. I sometimes feel that occasionally hon. Members forget to say what they should in terms of supporting the police.

Sir John Wheeler: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that this issue requires the greatest care and scrutiny in the course of the inquiry. Does he further agree that associated with the inquiry is the role of the forensic science service? He will recall the recent Home Affairs Select Committee report on that subject. Will he confirm that some of the issues attached to the inquiry relate to many years ago and that today's service is different and has yet to be improved still further?

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are well aware of his Select Committee's recommendations. As he said, the offences were committed a very long time ago. Since then, the forensic science service has been investigated in a report by Sir Ronald Mason, a fellow of

the Royal Society. That report was published in 1985. Enormous strides forward have been made in both the administration and the scientific procedures of the forensic science service. As it proceeds towards its possible new status as an executive agency, questions of whether it should automatically be made available to help the defence as well as the prosecution must be considered.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm—I do not think that the gap between us is as great as he sometimes makes out—that, if one is interested in catching terrorists, it cannot be in anybody's interests to put away the wrong people? Will he confirm further that those who have pursued the Guildford, Woolwich, Maguire and Birmingham cases remorselessly over a long period of years are motivated solely by the belief that the wrong people have been convicted, and that we have been proved right so far in two out of three cases, despite a great deal of abuse heaped upon our heads by some of the Ministers hon. Friends, although not all of them? Will he confirm that there is absolutely no point in keeping innocent people in gaol? They are not hostages to be held there simply because the police are incapable of catching the correct people.

Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—there is nothing between us at all in wishing to see alleged miscarriages of justice put right; of course, there is not. However, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to tell the House that which he told the House during an Adjournment debate on 14 June, only about a month ago—that he had material evidence in the shape of two more names. It is recorded in Hansard that he would make those names available. I plead with him now, in the interests of putting right the injustices that he alleges occurred, only to give those names immediately to the prosecuting authorities. I cannot understand why he does not.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is not it nauseating in the extreme that the IRA, which could provide the names and conclusive evidence of the guilt of terrorists responsible for an atrocity, fails to do so and allows people to linger in gaol, yet those IRA people use such cases to denigrate the United Kingdom, the police force and our legal system, which is the finest in the world? Should not we bear it in mind that the IRA gives no right of appeal to the people whom it murders? That is something which people will not forgive.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is quite right. Hon. Members should listen to the moderate but passionate way in which he has put his case, speaking on behalf of the people in Northern Ireland who have suffered so terribly over the years. All hon. Members, whatever their political affiliations, owe it as a duty to the House and to the people, if they have information that can help the police in the pursuit of alleged miscarriages of justice, to tell the prosecuting authorities as soon as possible.

Mr. Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has now three times accused me of not providing information—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a matter of argument.

Mr. Mullin: It is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order for me that I can deal with?

Mr. Mullin: The Minister three times accused me of not providing information that I undertook to provide. In fact, the Devon and Cornwall police inquiry has been in touch with me, and I am in the process of providing it with just that information.

European Council of Ministers

Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the last three meetings he attended of the Council of Ministers; what subjects were discussed; and which Ministers were in attendance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): My right hon. and learned Friend has not attended any meetings of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that my concern about the Scottish Office not being represented at European Council of Ministers meetings extends to the Home Department and its failure to attend? Is the Minister really saying that there are no important issues that should have been discussed with European colleagues during the past months and years? Does that confirm Britain's role as a part-time, semi-detached member of the European Community and extend to the Home Department the isolationist and anti-European ideas of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Lloyd: The simple reason is that Council of Ministers meetings are attended by Ministers who have responsibility for the issues to be discussed there. Home affairs do not come under the treaty of Rome. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend attends the Trevi meetings, in which Ministers with responsibility for home affairs and immigration discuss the issues that are important to them. My right hon. and learned Friend attends all those meetings, as did his predecessor.

Electronic Surveillance Devices

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce regulations restricting the supply and sale of electronic surveillance listening devices.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): No, Sir, for the reasons given in response to the debate on electronic surveillance devices initiated by my hon. Friend on 13 March 1989.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is outrageous that anyone, especially criminals, can buy such pieces of equipment, which can be used to snoop into other people's affairs, at a number of retail outlets in Oxford street and in high streets around the country? Does he further agree that that could constitute an invasion of privacy? Although it is not well known outside the House, companies around the country are increasingly aware of that problem because they have to buy countersurveillance equipment to deal with it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is outrageous and will he do something about it?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend has raised an important question, which has been looked into and explored in the House on several occasions. It would be difficult to define those devices to be made illegal without the definition being overtaken by technological advance. It is highly unlikely that there is any device that could not be represented by somebody as having some legitimate use. Therefore, it is probably very much better to go down the path recommended by Mr. Calcutt's report and to identify where a serious mischief is done by the placing of a surveillance device on private property to obtain, in the case recommended by Calcutt, personal information for publication.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a wider problem? Many instruments are being used for the furtherance of crime and the Home Office must do more to stop the sale of such things by direct mail. I refer, for example, to the direct mailing of skeleton keys to members of the public, which can easily be used for opening car doors. That is an obnoxious and dangerous activity, which should be brought under review of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Waddington: Clearly, the main question has nothing whatever to do with the sale of keys; has a lot to do with the sale of surveillance devices. The hon. Gentleman has not addressed his mind or his question to the two difficulties that I identified in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to listen to Home Office questions.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the passage of my Computer Misuse Bill, which is now, happily, enacted, the House seriously considered the possibility of making electronic eavesdropping a criminal offence, but rightly concluded that it was almost impossible to do so? On the basis that prevention is better than cure, will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) because this is a growing problem, which the Government must address?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously, in deference to my hon. Friend, I shall reconsider that matter. However, I cannot do more than repeat the difficulties that I identified when replying to the original question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on all his work to get his private Member's Bill on the statute book.

Mr. Darling: The Home Secretary has accepted that it will be possible to legislate to control the use of listening devices by the press. Surely, therefore, it is also possible to address the problems, which are now becoming quite common, of the sale and supply of those electronic surveillance devices and their uses? If the Home Secretary wanted to do something about that problem, surely all the resources that are available to him tend to suggest that


something could be done about it, not only in the simple case of the invasion of privacy by certain members of the press.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has not addressed his mind to the very real difficulties that I identify. It would be easy to define devices that would attract the sanctions of the criminal law, but I find it difficult to believe that within a few months other mischevious devices that would not be covered by the prohibition would not be on the market. New devices are developed as a result of technological advance. In any event, I repeat what I said earlier: it is unlikely that we could point to any single device for which somebody could not allege a perfectly legitimate use. The most obvious example is that any hearing device can be dressed up as some form of hearing aid. One could produce a whole list, including surveillance devices in shops that are there to identify shoplifters. Time and again, such devices would attract the criminal law because of the wide definition.

Juvenile Crime

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the trend in the level of juvenile crime in the first quarter of this year.

Mr. John Patten: The number of known juvenile offenders has been falling since 1985. Last year there were under 100,000, compared with 176,000 in 1985. We do not yet have figures for the first quarter of this year.

Mrs. Hicks: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the unfortunate rise in juvenile crime in my area in the first quarter of this year? The rise in joy-riding among those under 17 who have never passed a driving test is particularly worrying. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant factor contributing to juvenile crime is the lack of discipline and parental responsibility in the home? Does he agree that the sooner that we legislate to make parents more accountable for the actions of their children by making them appear in court with their children and pay the price of their deeds, the better it will be for all our constituents who have to bear the consequences of that lack of responsibility?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The plans that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary published in his White Paper to find new ways of making parents more responsible for preventing their children from offending—an idea which would have been unfashionable 10 years ago—have been widely welcomed in the country. I hope that we can proceed to legislate as soon as possible.

Mr. Sheerman: Why does the Minister continue to shuffle responsibility for the enormous increase in the crimes committed in Britain on to parents or anyone else, but refuse to admit that it is the fault of the values that his party has represented during the past 10 years? His party has introduced a rottweiler society rather than a just society. When will the Minister announce plans for crime prevention policies that provide creative outlets for our young people?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is rather excitable this afternoon. The Labour Front-Bench approach to why crime rises and falls is extraordinarily naive. Sometimes

the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) say that crime rises because of poverty, but on other occasions they say that it rises because of affluence. The Guardian was entirely right two weeks ago when it criticised the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who is laughing there on the Front Bench, for his knee-jerk reaction to the recently published crime figures. If anything demonstrates to the House that the Labour party does not understand that we are all responsible for helping to prevent crime, it is the hon. Gentleman's question.

Ealing Police Consultative Committee

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on funding of the Ealing borough police consultative committee; and what changes there have been in its membership.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Funding for the Ealing community and police consultative group is provided from the Metropolitan police fund, as is the case with all 41 police-community consultative groups which operate in the Metropolitan police district. The cost of running the Ealing group in 1989–90 was £33,000.
I understand that Ealing borough council has recently appointed representatives to the Ealing group. I welcome that move, and urge the three London borough councils—Brent, Hackney and Lambeth—which have yet to take up their places on their local groups, to do so.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Ealing borough police consultative committee has done an excellent job for several years? Will he also confirm that Labour councillors refused to attend a single meeting when Labour was in control of Ealing borough council and that the same councillors spent millions of pounds of ratepayers' money and employed 10 staff to abuse the police and make their work difficult? They were led by a Labour councillor who was the deputy leader of another borough. Does not that give the lie to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen who pretend to support the police? They do not.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The Ealing consultative group has been doing extremely good work without Ealing borough council representation, but it will now be able to do better work because it has that support. It is extremely interesting that of the five councils that did not send representatives to their consultative group, the residents who felt disadvantaged by that turned two of those councils out—quite right too. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Home Office Questions are extremely important. They are about good order in the country. I hope that we can treat them with equal good order in the Chamber.

Missing Persons Register

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to establish a national computerised missing persons register; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We intend to introduce such a register. We have been examining two possible options as


to how this might be done and are currently seeking the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers before reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Hughes: Last year, some 98,000 young persons were reported missing. The Home Office has conducted a feasibility study on a register and, while I welcome the intention to create one, is not it about time that it was produced? Will the Minister confirm that he has already had the views of the chief police officers? Why is he delaying? Why will not he say that the register will be established and fully funded?

Mr. Lloyd: Because there are several ways that we might advance. We want the chief police officers' views before we decide on our route, but the most likely is one that involves the police national computer, which does not come on stream until next year. The hon. Gentleman appears to imply that the collection of information on missing people is not good, but that is not so. Each police authority organises its own information. The hon. Gentleman referred to young people who are lost, but the police in each area take quick action when young people are reported missing and they are nearly always found. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 98,000 vulnerable people who are missing. For the last year for which I have information, the figure stands at just over 100,000, but it is important to note that only 1.5 per cent. were not found after four weeks. That demonstrates that our existing methods are good, but we can use new technology to make them better.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I have had missing persons' cases in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we consider the matter we should look once again at the idea of a national identity card scheme?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that that would help; nor would it be a valuable investment. I believe that the plans that we are maturing are the best that can be devised to find missing people, which is what we all want to do.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister be more positive about setting up the register? He knows that the Association of Chief Police Officers is entirely in favour of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has already mentioned the 98,000 young people who go missing on the streets of our towns and cities every year. The police national computer mark 2 is ready to come on stream. Will the Minister assure the House that he will set up that register as soon as conceivably posssible?

Mr. Lloyd: I said that we intend to set up such a register, and we shall do so, but we must have the new computer on stream before it is practical for that to be done. We are seizing the first opportunity to do that.

Mr. Rathbone: In this planning period will my hon. Friend ensure that there is co-operation among police forces throughout Europe? With the greater movement of people, particularly young people, it is essential to have a pan-European system.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion, but first we need to get our system properly in order and computerised. We shall then press for such a development.

Pub Bombings

Mr. John Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed the Guildford and Woolwich or the Maguire cases with (a) the Lord Chief Justice or (b) the Master of the Rolls.

Mr. Waddington: I have not discussed the Guildford and Woolwich case or the Maguire case with the Lord Chief Justice or the Master of the Rolls.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Home Secretary share the public's serious concern that a number of leading judges are saying that the Guildford Four and the family that we are not allowed to mention are guilty? In the light of those ill-founded and irresponsible remarks which will pervert justice, will he demand their resignation?

Mr. Waddington: I know nothing whatever of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman alleges have been made.

Mr. Franks: As and when my right hon. and learned Friend meets the Lord Chief Justice, will he discuss the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the prosecution of Mr. Kevin Taylor, Mr. John Stalker's friend?

Mr. Waddington: I have no intention of discussing any of those matters with the Lord Chief Justice.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary tell the House what the hell is going on in the British judicial system? We have had Woolwich, Guildford, the case we cannot refer to today because it is sub judice, and we shall have the Birmingham Six before long. Many people in this country are beginning to believe that a combination of perjured police officers, judges who are clearly biased and compliant Ministers is reducing the British judicial system to low farce. In view of the times that the Home Secretary has had to eat his own words, would not it be better if he printed them on rice paper to make his task more palatable?

Mr. Waddington: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman's intemperate remarks. I certainly do not understand what he means by "compliant Ministers" because he knows perfectly well that I told the House on 14 June that counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions had told the May inquiry that, in his view, the convictions were unsafe. I said that in those circumstances the proper course would probably be for me to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Home Secretary is going wide of the sub judice rule on this matter.

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that I am not infringing the sub judice rule—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me hear what the Home Secretary has to say.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that there had been compliant Ministers. I was merely rehearsing the action that I had already taken and what I told the House as long ago as 14 June. I was going to remind the House of what I said in answer to a written question yesterday. I do not understand how that can be referred to as compliance. I have never heard such nonsense in all my life.

Mr. Speaker: I must say to the Home Secretary that it was he who caused this matter to become sub judice, and I now have to uphold that rule.

Trevi Group

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage the other members of the Trevi group to adopt his four-point agenda in the Europeanwide fight against crime.

Mr. Waddington: I welcome the priority that my colleagues in Trevi have already agreed should be accorded to co-operation in respect of terrorism and drug trafficking, methods of detection, and confiscation of the proceeds of serious crime, and I will continue to press for effective action on all those fronts.

Mr. Knapman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and for all the good works that he has done in this area. Does he agree that the idea of open frontiers may be better in principle than in practice if we are to contain the spread of drugs, contraband and illegal arms?

Mr. Waddington: We have made it absolutely plain to our partners in the Community that it would be foolish for us to abandon the advantages of our geography and that we have no intention of removing the controls to deal with serious crime, terrorism and drugs. That does not mean that we should not continue to try to get the maximum of police co-operation in the Community.

Pub Bombings

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall police into the Birmingham pub bombings case to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider establishing a public inquiry into the convictions of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

Mr. John Patten: Important aspects of this case are now being investigated by the Devon and Cornwall police. It is not possible at this stage to say when the Devon and Cornwall constabulary will be able to report on the results of their inquiries, but I know that the police are fully aware of the need to complete the inquiries as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend will decide, in the light of the outcome of those inquiries, whether any further action is called for on his part.

Mr. Flannery: Is not it a fact that the report will go only to the chief constable of the West Midlands, and that it will not be published or made available to the solicitors for the Birmingham Six? What kind of democracy is that? In view of this melancholy and sordid business, can we have an independent public inquiry into this case which has gone wildly astray in the same way as many others?

Mr. Patten: About 45 police officers in the Devon and Cornwall force are working as fast and as thoroughly as they can to conduct their inquiries. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to hinder that. The hon. Gentleman

was right when he said that the report will go to the chief constable of the West Midlands. Of course, the information will then be made available to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary so that he can take it into account in deciding whether he needs to take any more action in respect of this case.

Mr. Madden: If 45 officers have been seconded to this inquiry why on earth is it taking so long? When is the inquiry due to be completed, how many people have so far been interviewed and how many have still to be interviewed?

Mr. Patten: I entirely appreciate the hon. Gentleman's impatience and his desire to know when the inquiry will be completed and the report returned. It is important for the police to be allowed to conduct their in-depth inquiries at their own pace and to look into everything. A number of people, including his eminence Cardinal Hume, have pressed my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the investigation is not hurried and is properly carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I returned from a meeting of the economic summit in Houston. I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Dunnachie: Following last week's conviction for murder in Kilmarnock of a 15-year-old who was addicted to machine gambling, will the Government now impose the severest panalties on those who flout the law by exposing people under 18 to the dangers of machine gambling?

The Prime Minister: We have done our level best to increase the penalties for such matters, and not always with the support of the Opposition. I note the hon. Gentleman's strong views that such penalties should be further increased.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Recalling that it was this Government and the Conservative party alone who supported the right-to-buy legislation which was successfully piloted through the House, is my right hon. Friend aware that in Basildon we have sold 14,000 council, commission and development corporation properties? Will she consider further enhancing people's opportunity for home ownership by extending the rents-into-mortgages scheme to the rest of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that the Government's right-to-buy legislation is doing so well in my hon. Friend's constituency, as it is elsewhere. It gives a new opportunity to people to own their homes and


eventually to pass them on to their children. The pilot scheme that operates in Scotland and Wales to turn rents into mortgages is another advantageous way for people to own their homes, and that scheme is doing very well. When we have more experience of it we shall see whether it should be extended further.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not it clear to the Prime Minister that what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said to The Spectator cannot be unsaid and that therefore he can have no place in her Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has expressed his very great regret and has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.

Mr. Kinnock: Has not the Prime Minister made it clear by that reply that the only reason for the right hon. Gentleman staying in the Cabinet is that his views are her views?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Those views—which have been withdrawn—did not represent the Government's views or, indeed, mine.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not it the case that when, within the terms of collective responsibility as everyone understands them, a Secretary of State expresses views strongly and graphically that are contrary to the views of the Government, that Secretary of State is sacked? Will not the Prime Minister recognise that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is not just deeply offensive to our allies and partners, but deeply damaging to our country's interests? He must go.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has expressed his very great regret—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: —and unreservedly withdrawn his remarks. They do not represent the Government's view or, indeed, my own. I have always understood that it is the custom of the House that when remarks have been apologised for and unreservedly withdrawn—as they have been in this case—that withdrawal is gracefully accepted.

Sir Peter Hordern: When my right hon. Friend meets the leaders of the European Community countries, will she tell them that a country that controls its inflation better than any other by strict monetary policies and offers rapid economic growth to the benefit of the whole Community—including the United Kingdom—is a country greatly to be admired, and that West Germany plays an important and useful role in Europe and the world at large?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Indeed, I said words almost identical to that at the economic summit, pointing out that Germany had managed to keep her inflation and unemployment low and to keep her growth, investment, savings ratio and exports high, and that all that was greatly to be admired.

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will take time out of Prime Minister's questions, but—[Interruption.] Order. I must take it if the matter needs my immediate attention.

Mr. Hood: The Prime Minister told the House that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has apologised to the House, but she has apologised for him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is certainly not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must sit down: he is taking a lot of time out of questions.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Prime Minister realise that she cannot talk about increasing international co-operation while retaining in her Cabinet a Secretary of State who has not only been downright unneighbourly, but has cast a slight on the attitude towards the European Community? Does she agree that this is the worst example of little Englander behaviour that we have seen? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask Government Members to listen to the question.

Mrs. Ewing: What will the Cabinet do to redress the position?

The Prime Minster: The Government were prominent in furthering co-operation at the economic summit in Houston, to the benefit of each and every one of the G7 countries. I have nothing to add to what I said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Peacock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should all welcome Mr. Gorbachev's fine handling of his party's 28th congress in Moscow? Is not that a pointer for good international stability in the future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Government have consistently supported President Gorbachev's efforts towards reform in the Soviet Union, and we earnestly hope that they will be successful. Clearly, his political reforms have already been successful and have led to freedom of speech and of movement, and freedom to emigrate on a scale undreamt of two or three years ago. At the Houston summit we agreed that each of us should give—some are already giving—technical assistance and know-how training, and we have embarked upon a study through the International Monetary Fund to see what further help can best be given and what criteria should be fulfilled before such help is given.

Mr. Ashdown: Is not the real significance of the comments of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reported this morning that they reveal a deep and irreconcilable split on Europe in the Cabinet which is damaging Britain's interests and causing confusion in the Government's policy and contempt for Britain abroad? Does not the Prime Minister realise that if she will not sack


him, she condones him, and that her Government will remain in shambles for as long as he remains a member of it?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. Those remarks did not represent the Government's views or my own. Britain's influence and reputation were greatly enhanced at the Houston summit by the spirit of co-operation that we showed and by our efforts to bring about a successful communiqué at the end of that summit.

Mr. Lawrence: Since it appears from recent court decisions that the Shops Act 1950 is contrary to the treaty of Rome, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing amending legislation on Sunday trading, preferably after the next general election?

The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend asks a bold question. Before the Government introduce legislation after the next election we should seek assurance from those who opposed the previous legislation that we have an acceptable compromise, particularly in view of some recent court cases. That would be advisable, and if my hon. and learned Friend would like to start collecting the voices and the views I should be very grateful.

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Primarolo: The track record of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of insensitive and outrageous statements on a number of issues is well known. Is there anything that the Secretary of State could say that would get him the sack?

The Prime Minister: I have indicated clearly that my right hon. Friend has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.[Interruption.] When remarks are so unreservedly withdrawn we accept that withdrawal gracefully.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Speaker: Order. A few moments ago I had to reprove Members on the Government Benches. Now I must ask the Opposition to let the Prime Minister have a fair hearing on this.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in Hungary, as I thought hon. Members knew.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the great success of the abolition of the dock labour scheme a year ago, there is now an urgent case for following it up with a new public enabling Bill to allow the rapid development of other port enterprises by the privatisation of the outdated trust port structures?

The Prime Minister: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The abolition of the dock labour scheme was a great success for the ports and their hinterlands. I understand that for other ports in the trust to be privatised it would have to be done by the private Bill procedure, which is very cumbersome. We are looking into the possibility of an enabling Bill so that they could be privatised more easily.

Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Reid: Is the Prime Minister aware that the fight for the steel industry in Scotland is concerned with saving Ravenscraig, a Motherwell steel plant, not Ravensglass, a Cumbrian village, which is what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seemed to believe when we met him? Is she aware that as part of the fight Sir Kenneth Alexander has been nominated for the board of directors of British Steel? Although she cannot endorse any particular candidate, will she testify to his fitness as a candidate, as a man of great learning, industrial experience and integrity?

The Prime Minister: I regret that I do not know the gentleman and it would be quite wrong of me to endorse one candidate because I was asked to do so. That is a matter for the shareholders of the company, as the hon. Gentleman realises and it is for those who put him forward to testify to all the things that the hon. Gentleman has enumerated.

Economic Summit (Houston)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the economic summit held in Houston from 9–11 July, which I attended with—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important statement. Would hon. Members who are not remaining in the Chamber for it kindly leave quietly?

The Prime Minister: I attended the Houston summit with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The communiqué and the separate political declarations issued at the summit have been placed in the Library of the House.
Our discussions ranged widely, and we achieved important practical results which meet the needs of the times. Great credit for this is due to President Bush for his firm and friendly chairmanship. I shall summarise the main points of our discussion, under seven broad headings: the world economy; international trade; assistance to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe; developing countries; the environment; drugs; and political issues.
First, on the world economy, economic expansion is now in its eighth year in our countries, with notable growth both in incomes and in the number of new jobs. We ascribed this excellent record to sound budgetary and economic policies. These should continue if economic expansion is to be sustained. Much emphasis was placed on the need for more saving, at a time when the investment needs of the world are expected to grow, in central and eastern Europe and in the developing countries.
I reaffirmed Britain's determination to get down inflation as our first priority, and our intention to join the exchange rate mechanism.
Secondly, international trade, in my opening remarks, I stressed that the touchstone of success at the summit would be our attitude to the continued freeing up of world trade. I am glad to report that we reached agreement which should make possible a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round of world trade negotiations later this year.
The main difficulty lies in the subsidies and other forms of support and protection which virtually all major countries give to their agriculture. We agreed in Houston that we should each make substantial, progressive reductions in our agricultural support programmes. This will cover internal support, barriers to market access and export subsidies. To subsidise inefficient producers to keep them in business is unfair to those who are competitive. The outcome should therefore be to the advantage of British farmers, who are among the most efficient in Europe.
I believe that the result will also be very welcome in other countries, including the developing countries, and will open the way to resolving the remaining problems in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations. Most importantly, it will give a clear signal that we are determined to go on with the liberalisation of world trade, which has contributed so much to growth and prosperity. That was the most encouraging message from the summit.
Thirdly, we discussed assistance to the Soviet Union. We all recognised the Soviet Union's need for technical

assistance and know-how. Many of us are already providing management training, for instance—but help from the summit seven as a group should be tied to the introduction of genuine market policies and to encouraging the Soviet Union to mobilise its own extensive resources. We also pointed to the need for the Soviet Union to shift resources away from the military sector and to cut its support to nations that promote regional conflict. It is not our purpose to provide an oxygen tent for survival of much of the old system.
For that reason, we agreed that there should be a thorough study of the problems and needs of the Soviet economy, and of the criteria for assistance. That study should be led by the International Monetary Fund, which has the greatest expertise in that area. Other organisations will be involved, and the Commission will be closely consulted. The report should be completed by the end of this year. Thus we can ensure that any help we give will be properly targeted and effective.
Fourthly, on developing countries, we noted that the best help that we can give the developing countries is to sustain our own economic growth and to keep our markets open. We welcomed the growing acceptance by many developing countries themselves that the best way to growth is through market-oriented policies, openness to foreign investment, and sound, democratic government. We reaffirmed our support for the case-by-case debt strategy, and agreed to support longer repayment periods for lower middle-income countries, which are implementing strong reform programmes.
Fifthly, on the environment, we acknowledged that there is still some uncertainty about how much global warming is due to natural causes and how much to man-made causes, but the threat of irreversible environmental damage required us to take actions that are justified in their own right.
We all want the world climate conference in November to consider the best ways to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions. That would lead to the negotiation of a framework convention on climate change by 1992, under the auspices of the United Nations environment programme.
We welcomed the decisions at the recent London meeting to phase out chlorofluorocarbons by the year 2000 and to provide financial assistance to developing countries to enable them to meet their obligations. We also attach particular importance to action to save tropical forests.
I believe that as a result of the summit there is now a much better understanding and sense of common purpose among the G7 countries on environmental issues, which is vital if we are to tackle these problems effectively. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I may say to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that this is hardly a laughing matter.

The Prime Minister: Sixthly, on drugs, we underlined once more the crucial importance of international co-operation in every aspect of tackling the drugs problem —production, demand, trafficking and money-laundering. We pledged our support to the countries engaged most directly in the fight against drug trafficking, and we agreed to set up a special task force to ensure that precursor and other essential chemicals are not diverted to the manufacture of illicit drugs.
The summit discussed also some of the principal international political issues, and agreed statements on securing democracy, terrorism, and the growing problem of proliferation in nuclear and other fields. We acknowledged some recent progress in China, and said that we would be ready to relax measures in response to further positive steps towards political and economic reform. We also called on all parties in South Africa to refrain from violence or its advocacy.
Finally, I invited other Heads of Government to meet in London for a further summit next July. They gladly and graciously accepted.
The great achievement of these summits has been to make it easier for all of us to reject short-term soft options in favour of longer-term real solutions: in particular, sound economic policies, freer competition, keeping our markets open and identifying new problems such as drugs and the environment at an early stage, and tackling them by international co-operation.
The world looks to these summits for a lead, and I believe that the G7 countries have once again provided just that, particularly on trade. Last week's very successful NATO summit in London was an important step towards a safer and more peaceful world. Our meeting in Houston takes us towards a more prosperous world for everyone.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for that statement but express some surprise and concern that, in the week of what President Bush and Mr. Wörner called an "historic" NATO summit, the Prime Minister made scant mention of that meeting in London last week. Why was there virtually no reference to the London summit when it was widely anticipated on good authority that she would be making a statement on the NATO meeting?
On the Houston summit, the G7 commitment to giving "appropriate" economic assistance to "countries that choose freedom" is welcome. Does the Prime Minister accept that, if the end of totalitarianism in eastern European countries and the Soviet Union were to be followed by poverty, it would be a great tragedy and a source of dangerous instability? Does she not agree that, although aid to those countries obviously must be judiciously allocated and geared to specific objectives, if it is too slow or too small it will not have its full and desired effect of fostering change, liberty and peace. Will she therefore stop thinking of economic help from west to east as what she calls "an oxygen tent" for old regimes and start recognising that, properly used, it is the vital means of finishing off the old order once and for all?
In the wake of the Houston summit, does the Prime Minister accept that there is widespread support for the reduction of agricultural subsidies? Does she not agree, however, that the terms of the Houston communiqué are extremely vague? Will she assure the House that the British Government will press for a more precise timetable over which agricultural subsidies will be reduced in the advanced countries? Will she tell the House what the Government's policy will be for transitional arrrangements and towards hill farmers and others who work marginal areas who will be unavoidably affected by any significant change?
Does the Prime Minister agree that the response of the Houston summit to the pressing environmental issues confronting our planet was far from adequate? Can she

explain why the summit failed to specify any action whatsoever on the urgent and growing problem of global warming?
Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that the language of co-operation that she uses in her statements on international summits will carry no conviction for as long as she shares a Cabinet table with a Secretary of State who likens the European Commission to Adolf Hitler and Chancellor Kohl to Nazi tyranny? If she considers the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry still to be fit to hold office, then she is not fit to hold office.

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I have nothing to add to what I have already said. I note that he is not capable of graciously accepting the withdrawal of his remarks which my right hon. Friend has fully made.
I did not make a statement on the NATO summit, but I am quite willing to make one. I did not think that it would be very welcome if I made two statements today, but I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman wants a statement every time I have a bilateral meeting or attend a NATO summit.
I shall quickly answer the right hon. Gentleman's three questions on the NATO summit. As he will realise, we have set up a team to work out a new strategy for the different circumstances because forward defence may no longer be suitable. We need much defence in depth and much more flexible forces and to rely more on reserves.
We were, however, clear about several things on nuclear weapons. For example, we made it quite clear that to keep the peace the alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary. I hope that that pleases the right hon. Gentleman.
When speaking of short-range nuclear weapons, there was a suggestion—it was put in the communiqué—that they should be weapons of last resort, but in case that was misread, we also included in the communiqué an agreement which we have had in NATO for a long time—since the comprehensive concept, which the right hon. Gentleman has never agreed with—that nuclear weapons will continue to fulfil an essential role in the overall strategy of the alliance to prevent war by ensuring that there are no circumstances in which nuclear retaliation in response to military action might be discounted. I hope that that also pleases the right hon. Gentleman.
With regard to aid to the Soviet Union, many countries already have lines of credit to the Soviet Union from their banks, some of which are backed up by Government guarantees, like Germany, and others by Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. In our case, £800 million has not been drawn by the Soviet Union, so it is not short of a loan facility should it wish to purchase things, and most of those things will have ECGD cover.
Many of us are giving various technical assistance, mostly on managerial training, and each in our own way. We were considering further aid, which of course comes from the taxpayer, but any aid that we can give, even as G7 countries, will be comparatively small compared with the economy of that enormous country of 280 million people and 11 time zones, which runs from the sub-tropics to the ice cap. We cannot run that country for it; we can only help it to help itself. In the political declaration, we offered substantial facilities for drafting, because they have no law


on private property, no company law and precious little contract law. We can help with many of those things. When we are considering how—

Mr. Tony Banks: Let us send them truckloads of lawyers.

The Prime Minister: It would be a very good thing to have a number of lawyers in a country that knows no rule of law. This country believes—at any rate, Conservatives do—that an independent judiciary must determine the law. It would be good to pass on that lesson to the communist countries.
We shall look at the International Monetary Fund's analysis to see whether there is further help that we can give, but it would be absurd to think that we can change the future of the Soviet Union by the amount of aid that we give, which is why it must be carefully targeted. It is not that it does not grow sufficient food, but that about 40 per cent. of the food that it grows never gets to market. It could do with much technical help on food processing, storage distribution systems and transport. That would be worth doing. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that these were the conclusions of the seven largest industrialised countries responsible for 60 per cent. of the world's gross national product?
With regard to agriculture and a more precise timetable, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we negotiate our agriculture through the common agricultural policy, and we shall have to get together in the Community to see how we shall go ahead and honour the commitments that we made at Houston. But it was very important that we made this commitment before the Uruguay round ends this year.
We are also using the De Zeeuw report, which was produced by the negotiating committee of GATT, as a basis for our negotiations. It recommended that we should have a common measurement among all agricultural countries and that we should reduce our export subsidies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Briefly."] The right hon. Gentleman asked me the questions, but he does not like it when I answer them thoroughly. The environment conclusions reached—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has already said that she is answering the questions posed by the Leader of the Opposition. His Back-Bench colleagues should listen.

The Prime Minister: The environmental conclusions reached were significant. They followed the excellent conferences we have had in London on the ozone layer and the commitment of 80 nations to phase out chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the century. The next step is to try to deal with the greenhouse gases.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will find, for example—

Mr. Cryer: Will the Prime Minister give way on this point?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is intolerable for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to behave like that.

The Prime Minister: We wish to be ready for a climate convention on greenhouse gases or their equivalent, which includes methane and many other gases. We also made arrangements to join together to try to protect the Brazilian rain forest. We have already taken a lead by allocating £100 million over three years to protect the Brazilian rain forest. Other people, especially the young people of this country, will be very interested, even if the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is not.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that today we have the conclusion to the important debate on community charge capping, which must end at 7 pm, and also a business statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members who will now be called to put single questions and to put them briefly.

Mr. David Howell: While at Houston, did my right hon. Friend receive any representations from the Japanese about their wish to be more closely involved in the reorganisation of European security and in the resurgence of eastern Europe? Was she able to encourage and support those aspirations?

The Prime Minister: The Japanese are closely involved in the resurgence of eastern Europe and, with their enormous balance of trade, they are capable of giving considerable investment help—and are willing to do so. We did not become involved in security at this meeting.

Sir David Steel: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is a pity that she did not take the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with her in her ministerial team, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary?
The only timetable at which the right hon. Lady hinted in her statement was that of the election. Can she be a little more precise about bringing down the rate of inflation, about joining the exchange rate mechanism and about the progressive reduction of agricultural support?
On the question of the Soviet Union, is the Prime Minister aware that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a lot of time.

Sir David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that, at her press conference last night, she sounded, perhaps unwittingly, a little grudging about aid to the Soviet Union? Will she now make it clear that she accepts that the price of support to the Soviet Union has to be balanced against the considerable cost of defending ourselves against that country?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I made a formidable and successful team at the Houston summit. We shall join the exchange rate mechanism when the Madrid conditions are fully satisfied. There will be an election during the next two years. I have forgotten what the last question was.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Does not my right hon. Friend find it hypocritical to be given advice about the ending of the old Soviet economic order by men from the other side who have spent the best part of their political lives defending that same economic order and who have tried to bring it over here?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point well. Many of those people would still retreat to protectionism if they had half a chance.

Mr. Ron Leighton: If the Prime Minister believes her own rhetoric about deregulated markets and free trade, why does she acquiesce in what is perhaps the worst protectionist racket in the modern world —the common agricultural policy? It grossly inflates the price of food to the British consumer and it damages the trade of countries such as Australia, the United States and those in the third world. Why did not the Prime Minister give stronger support to the Americans for knocking the CAP on the head instead of agreeing to a bland form of words which leaves the CAP entirely intact?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that before we were members of the CAP we had our own support system for agriculture. That also cost a good deal. I think that every major industrialised country has one. This time we got together to try to reduce the amount of support that each of us gives so that we were each of us aware that we reduce export subsidies, internal support and access to our own markets. There had been a scheme put up under which we reduced only export subsidies. That would have been very advantageous to some countries, but highly disadvantageous to this country. We would have had to reduce our internal support and access while others would have kept their internal support and only reduced export subsidies. That is what we faced. We came away with us all reducing the total support and all reducing each component of it.

Mr. Nigel Forman: At the end of her statement, my right hon. Friend referred to the wish of all the leaders at Houston to go for longer-term real solutions rather than short-term soft options. Did my right hon. Friend look favourably upon the imaginative idea put forward in the United States as well as in this country for a kind of carbon tax or tradable pollution permits as a long-term realistic way of dealing with the problems of global warming?

The Prime Minister: I have seen much about tradable permits, but I am not yet convinced that they would work on a worldwide scale, which is the action that we need. When the question of a carbon tax is put to me, I point out that we already have pretty high taxes on petrol and gasoline, and they were put up in the last Budget. Other countries must have artificially cheap gasoline, and that leads to extravagant use, while our policy leads to economical use.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the progress on GATT to which the Prime Minister referred, but is she aware that it will be difficult to make much progress here when the Minister in charge of foreign trade is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? This matter concerns us all because, when he goes to Europe representing us, he will be rather disliked and his negotiations will be less advantageous to this country than

they would be if someone else represented us. Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is not enough to repudiate the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; she must repudiate him as well for the sake of the country?

The Prime Minister: The main negotiations as a result of the Houston summit will be on agricultural matters. That was the great success of the summit. The other thing that is of great importance in the communiqué is that we have all agreed not to take unilateral action. If there are disputes on trade, we should leave it to GATT and take the multilateral action required. That is also a great step forward.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for the European Community to lecture eastern Europe on the virtues of the free market economy while at the same time perpetuating the perversion of those principles which is enshrined in the common agricultural policy? Does she agree that it is no good fiddling around the edges with the CAP? She said a moment ago that she did not think that that was the right approach. The CAP is wrong in principle and must be completely scrapped.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the amount of support that is given through the CAP in comparison with other countries, OECD estimates show that the total cost of consumers and taxpayers of all forms of agricultural support or protection is $46 billion-worth in the United States for a population of about 220 million; in the European Community it is $93 billion-worth for a population of 320 million; and in Japan it is $68 billion-worth for a population of about 120 million. We are all guilty to some extent of supporting farming. The reason, as my right hon. Friend knows, is that, as the standard of living goes up, we buy many more consumer goods, but each of us will not eat more—we might eat different quality—and therefore the only increasing standard of living in agriculture has to come from increased productivity or variety.
We could not go from those figures straight away to no support at all. It so happens that New Zealand is now down to about 10 per cent. support. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that we are going steadily in the right direction on reducing protection, reducing subsidies, and getting away from support to the uncompetitive farmer to letting the competitive, efficient farmer have a much larger proportion of the trade.

Mr. Dave Nellist: In the wide-ranging discussions that the—

Hon. Members: Come on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will think that it is fair that I call hon. Members today who were not called on 12 June or 28 June, and I am doing that.

Mr. Nellist: In the wide-ranging discussions that the Prime Minister had, in particular on eastern Europe, did she consider apologising for the remarks of Sir Alan Walters, who, in Prague recently, lectured Czechoslovakia on how to introduce capitalism? He spoke of randomly sacking two thirds of that country's work force, and said:
Put their names in a hat—it appeals to their sporting instincts.
Is he, like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, still a close family friend reflecting her views?

The Prime Minister: The countries whose economies have collapsed are the countries that have been following the centrally planned and controlled system that the hon. Gentleman supports. Their economies have collapsed totally and, until now, have not enjoyed the freedom of speech which is fundamental to every remark that the hon. Gentleman makes and which he enjoys in this House.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Although the substantial and progressive reductions in agricultural support are a logical outcome of my right hon. Friend's insistence over the years that agriculture should play a major part in the Uruguay round, does my right hon. Friend understand that those reductions would be unacceptable and wholly unsaleable to European farmers unless those countries that subsidise their agriculture—my right hon. Friend referred to one a few moments ago—much more than we do take part in those reductions, just as much as everybody else? I am thinking of Japan in particular.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We made that point many times during the discussions. In particular, we said that rice is heavily subsidised in Japan. At one time it was subsidised to the tune of about eight times the world price. Countries cannot expect to export their manufactured goods on the basis of efficiency and refuse to import agricultural produce also on the basis of efficient production.

Mr. Denis Healey: Does the Prime Minister recall that last week President Mitterrand referred to her recent statements as representing the penultimate twitch of a dying Government who had brought Britain to the stage of terminal decline? Is she aware that, after the recent interview with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published in today's issue of The Spectator, the British people now regard her as not the general but the camp follower of Fred Karno's army? If she herself will not sack people such as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Sir Alan Walters, who are her personal pets or family friends, will she explain to the House and the people how the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House can continue to sit in the same Cabinet as men who are trying to undermine every objective that they are pursuing on behalf of what they state is her Government?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be known for ever as the only Chancellor in the post-war period who brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is it really the case that not a single Head of Government of the Group of Seven believes in the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange?

The Prime Minister: I most earnestly hope so, and believe so.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I understand that the recent summit dealt with long-term structural aid to the Soviet Union, but does the Prime Minister accept that there is a case for short-term initiatives also? The negotiations between Scottish and Soviet fishermen on the herring trade are deadlocked, for example, simply because of the Soviet shortage of hard currency. I am sure that the Prime Minister appreciates that, despite the build-up of

home-based processing capacity on the pelagic side, the herring and klondyker trade is vital to Scottish fishermen. Will she undertake to ask the relevant Minister's to consider that matter to see whether a Government initiative might break the deadlock?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier. There is a line of credit—of £800 million—for the Soviet Union from the banks of this country, which is supported and covered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, on which the Soviet Union has not yet drawn, although it can do so if it wishes. Nevertheless, we shall continue to look for technical problems that we could help the Soviet Union to solve. We are looking for larger things so that we can bring the Soviet Union to a complete change of attitude, from a centrally controlled economy to a market economy.

Sir Richard Body: As the European Community has made promises before about export subsidies, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we are one of the two paymasters of that system, and will she therefore insist that, on this occasion, a clear timetable is laid down whereby the export subsidies can be brought to an end?

The Prime Minister: I doubt whether we can bring those subsidies totally to an end. That would have enormous and difficult effects on many areas of this country. We must agree to reduce those subsidies, as well as other forms of support, and we are doing that. We shall be keeping a watch on other nations to ensure that they are doing so as well. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that we go for less protection, and for more open trade, but we must do that at a rate at which people can adjust to the new circumstances. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that.

Mr. Stuart Bell: In today's Herald Tribune, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying, in relation to agriculture, that the Houston conference was a bipolar conference, built around the dollar, the yen and the deutschmark. How does she reconcile that view with the remarks of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in The Spectator that the Germans are trying to take over Europe and that the deutschmark will always be the strongest currency because of their habits? Is it because the right hon. Lady agreed with those views that she did not accept his proffered resignation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman used a false premise at the beginning so that he could ask his customary question at the end. Of the economic countries, Japan has the yen, the United States and Canada have the dollar, and those in the European group, except us, are linked to the deutschmark by the exchange rate mechanism, and we shall be when we join the exchange rate mechanism. I should not have thought that the hon. Gentleman needed a lesson on those matters because he is highly skilled in them.

Mr. John Butcher: If we are to discuss the process of political and economic change in the Soviet Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms used must be both accurate and precise? Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the BBC, especially, now refers to the progressive pro-Gorbachev element in the Soviet Union, which supports policies similar to her own,


as "the left", and that those hard-line socialists who oppose President Gorbachev are referred to as "Conservatives"? Is that journalistic laziness or something worse?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is difficult and confusing. In every country, it is the classic communists and the hard-line left who are the trouble, and they are death to the prosperity of the people.

Sir Cyril Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is rather hypocritical of the United States of America to talk about freer trade when the Prime Minister herself in the past three weeks, by Act of Parliament, created a protectionist law under which certain equipment which has been bought in Britain for the past 10 years will now be supplied only by United States manufacturers, thereby threatening hundreds of jobs in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: Each of us is guilty of some form of protectionism. We have voluntary agreements on the number of cars that can be imported from Japan. We have a multi-fibre arrangement. Each of us is guilty of some form of protectionism. We pointed out that the United States, particularly in defence procurement, frequently goes to American manufacturers. That is not an open market. We mentioned those matters.
The important thing is that we are each determined to tackle that protectionism and reduce it. We cannot get rid of it all at once. Indeed, as we know, some other European countries are still protectionist towards some of our services. We want to get rid of that form of protectionism by 1992. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is right to go in the direction of less protectionism and more open trade as fast as we can.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on at least starting to tackle the common agricultural policy. It is one of the reasons why Europe has not succeeded in the way that so many of us hoped. To turn to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, many Conservative Members rather fear unification of Germany. We fear its economic might. We fear that it is better placed than any other country to scoop the eastern and central European countries' trading arrangements. A word in time—perhaps less emotive language should have been used—was intended to convey to Germany that we cannot stand by after 1992 and aid it to take over central Europe.

The Prime Minister: Thanks to Britain's efforts over the years, we have already tackled many aspects of the common agricultural policy. We have reduced surpluses substantially. There are few surpluses left. We have given the Community an agricultural budget within which it must live, and we have instituted a process whereby, if people produce more than the target amount of goods, whether wheat, rapeseed oil or anything else, the price falls the following year. We have tackled a great deal already. We have not yet tackled the fundamental amount of protectionism, but we shall do so now.
The unification of Germany will happen. East Germany will be in a much better position than the other countries of eastern Europe because it will be able to plug straight into the whole structure of a free market economy. From a system which the country has rejected it can move immediately to another. The other countries do not have

that system. That is why we are giving aid to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. That is quite right, because it will help them to come to that system. Poland is going most quickly along that road.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it not one thing to speak with the G7 countries about free trade but another to remember that the textile industry, for example, faces competition from countries which are not represented in that group and have shown no inclination whatever to liberalise their trade? If the negotiations are left to GATT, the textile industry may find that the multi-fibre arrangement has been eliminated altogether. Our textile industry will face free trade but will not have an opportunity to export to many other countries. Will the Prime Minister keep it in mind that in Britain we have lost 45 mills in the past 12 months?

The Prime Minister: We have asked the developing countries to join in GATT. With regard to what they can export, the fact that we subsidise our agricultural exports to other markets deprives them of a market. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we import a lot of textiles from developing countries and we have some special imports outside the multi-fibre arrangement. We must all steadily reduce protectionism. Those developing countries are being asked to join in GATT for freedom of services and intellectual property. If they are to join, however, they must also see that they have markets on the basis of competition. In our debates, we noted that it is not good enough just to talk about aid to developing countries; they want our markets to be open for trade.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the significant achievements and agreements of the past two weeks, to which she made an outstanding contribution, are to form the sure foundations of a new order—we all hope that they will—it is absolutely essential that we do everything possible to build trust among our allies, and not to sow dissention?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. Mr. Delors and Mr. Andriessen were in Houston and took part in the debates. I spoke with Mr. Delors and seconded him for a further term as President of the European Commission. They are looking forward to the new challenge on agriculture, and I am sure that they will tackle it vigorously.

Mr. Peter Shore: Agricultural protection damages developing countries and the newly independent countries of eastern Europe. Is it not a fact that the common agricultural policy, with its wholly effective device of variable levies, is the most perfect system of agricultural protection ever invented? Is it not time that that system, with all its aspects, was placed firmly on the agenda of, first, the Uruguay conference? I am not at all clear that it has been. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, it should be a major subject at the intergovernmental conferences to be convened in December with the objective of removing the central clauses from the Rome treaty, which gives the CAP such a damaging and powerful position in that legislation.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that, for a time, the CAP was the most obvious manifestation of the European Community. We do not argue that it is not protectionist—it is. In a way, it has sent


that message out to other countries and they feared that, with the coming of 1992, other markets would not be opened and that a new fortress Europe would be built. They feared that we would go the same way with other goods. It is absolutely vital to make it clear that we wanted a change of direction and that, on agriculture, we should become less protectionist, get subsidies down and have more open markets.
The purpose of 1992 is to get barriers down within Europe as an example of getting them down in the outside world. The external tariff on the Common Market is one of the lowest in the world. We shall go in the right way, as we have done in the past few years, to get surpluses down. We shall go in the right way to reduce subsidies and to achieve more open markets. We shall give a much better time to those of our family farms that do not fear competition because they will get a larger slice of the market if less efficient production ceases to be protected.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. Friend realise that her reference a moment ago to giving hope to Poland will give great pleasure to a vast number of people in this country, coming as it does only a few weeks after we celebrated the battle of Britain in which one in seven of the pilots who defended this country was a Pole?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is an impressive figure, and we shall remember it again in September with the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain. Poland has been immensely courageous in tackling economic problems. She has done so as fast as she possibly can and there is solidarity, in the normal sense, among her people and a will to succeed. We are giving as much help as we possibly can through the Community and separately.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it conceivable that at a major international conference of this order no discussions were pursued about the dangers to peace in the middle east caused by the policies of the Israeli Government and the activities of the Israeli military and police? Was there no discussion about the sufferings of the Palestinians? Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to try to educate President Bush about the damage done by Zionist pressures to America's real interests in the middle east?

The Prime Minister: Foreign Ministers, and sometimes Heads of Government, discuss the middle east at almost every summit they have. We have had three summits recently—the European Community, where there was an extensive communiqué on the middle east, the NATO summit, and this one, where we did not discuss the subject in such detail. But the United States Secretary of State, James Baker, is active. We are very much aware of the need to get a new initiative going, and the problem is being addressed. The situation is one of the most serious, with no obvious initiative at present. It is difficult to work out precisely the right initiative; every time we come close to getting the two sides together, something seems to happen to upset that. The Government in Israel are not the world's most stable Government with which to negotiate.

Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her outstanding personal contribution to the

success of the G7 conference and the NATO conference the previous week. Is my right hon. Friend sure that the GATT rounds will not be torpedoed by the time factor that has to be allowed for restructuring agricultural subsidies?

The Prime Minister: We shall strain to ensure that the communiqué is translated into fact. It is based on a report from the GATT negotiating committee on agriculture by a Dutchman called De Zeeuw, who recommended that we should all get down subsidies, particularly export subsidies. I hope that that is a good basis for negotiation. I spoke to Mr. Delors afterwards and, as I intimated, he is determined to get action under way and the new regime sorted out.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I appreciate the need to ensure that aid to the Soviet Union is spent wisely—that is quite right—but will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that imposed projects simply will not work? Proposals must dovetail with the efforts of the Soviet Union. If that country is not consulted, or feels, that it is being patronised, the initiatives could create more problems that they solved.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the Soviet Union is being consulted and the International Monetary Fund, which leads the team, will go to study the Soviet Union's economy and consult with the Soviets about what could best be done. We have asked for the report to be completed by the end of the year so that we know, and have the best advice, about how the help can be targeted. We shall then have to decide how much of us is prepared to give to that country—we shall do that jointly, as G7. I am sure that this is the best way to go about it: expert advice plus consultation, including consultation with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: My right hon. Friend has made much mention of the important issue of helping the Soviet Union. Was help to the other developing democracies in central and eastern Europe also covered in the discussions?

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed, because, as I said, we are already giving help to Poland and Hungary and extending some of the know-how to Czechoslavakia. At present, we do not have a particular fund to Czechoslovakia, but we are extending the help we give it. It will probably be easier to get those countries from a centrally planned and controlled economy to a freer market economy because they are much smaller. It is an enormous task to do that in a country as large as the Soviet Union. One of the keys do doing so successfully will be to devolve responsibility through some of the republics that hitherto have had to put every decision back to Moscow for approval.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1978 and 1979, she chided the Labour Prime Minister about going to a few summits? She said that, generally speaking, summitry was a waste of time and that nothing was achieved. Since coming to power she has been to an average of five or six summits a year at a cost to the British taxpayer of £4.25 million, while thousands of people are living in cardboard boxes on the Embankment and at Waterloo. If she is so concerned, why has she set up another three or four photo opportunities


before July next year? I suggest that it is not just the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who should be sacked for making a mockery of collective responsibility; it is time that she left and took the lot with her.

The Prime Minister: I know that it will disappoint the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that we achieve things at the summits that we attend. We have achieved a great deal in Europe, including a repayment to this country from the European budget of about £7 billion. We have reduced the subsidies in Europe and are now tackling the subsidies of the agriculture policies. We are to have a full common market in Europe, which is one of the original aims of the treaty of Rome. The Opposition did not do a single thing about that. We have done a great deal for the environment, which the Opposition did not do. Their only action was to cut capital expenditure at the behest of the International Monetary Fund. We have also kept NATO going, and it is probably because, like the United States, we have been such a staunch ally of NATO that the changes in the Soviet Union have been brought about.
The summits are very productive. [Interruption.] A different lot were negotiating then, but now there is a great improvement. We have reduced the European summits to one a presidency. However, because great events were taking place in eastern Europe, we had two under the French presidency. Perhaps we shall have two under the Irish presidency, but I hope that there will not be two under the Italian presidency. In the latter half of 1992, when we hold the presidency, we shall have one.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The trouble with multiple questions is that they lead to multiple answers. I have an obligation to protect the business of the House, and I think that I have called all hon. Members who were not called to put questions to the Prime Minister on 1 May and 28 June except the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr Banks), whom I shall call. I shall allow three more questions from each side and then we must move on because the House has other important business today.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Hon. Members on both sides, whether unregenerate federalists or reconstructed con-federalists. will regard with the greatest possible approval and warmth the decision of the Group of Seven to enlarge the scope and responsibilities of Churchill's great creation, the Council of Europe. Has it been decided whether the representation on that council will be on the present delegate basis or whether those serving on it will be elected?

The Prime Minister: There are 17 Council of Europe countries and, as the NATO communiqué states, we are extending that Council so that it will become an assembly of the CSCE, and will take in parliamentary representatives from all the Helsinki accord countries. Anything beyond that is a matter for negotiation, but appointment would be on the basis of the way that delegates are appointed to the Council of Europe. We felt it vital to include in our assemblies people from the United States, the Soviet Union and the whole of central Europe.

Mr. Tony Banks: When does the Prime Minister propose to stop using President Gorbachev as a source of international photo-call opportunities and start extending to him the sort of economic assistance that has been

approved by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl? What is the difference between the attitude of those two Governments and that of the British Government? Will she assure the House that, whatever else she sends to the Soviet Union by way of assistance, it will not be her doppelganger, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister: The answer is quite simple. Germany has extended a line of credit through her banks. We too have previously extended through our banks a line of credit which has not yet been exhausted, as I have said several times. The two countries are doing a similar thing.
When we are faced at a meeting with a demand for $15 billion of aid for the Soviet Union with no papers, details or structure, I do not think it right for a Minister answerable to the House to agree without going into the matter thoroughly. After all, it is our taxpayers' money that is being committed.

Mr. Tony Favell: Many people in this country do not realise how important my right hon. Friend's battle for free trade is for people here. Will she remind the House how much the common agricultural policy costs the British housewife each week?

The Prime Minister: The Council has calculated that the average family of four pays about £16 a week more because of the agricultural support. The farm price review, which was used before we went into the common agricultural policy, would have cost the taxpayer about as much. By one means or another, we have all supported our farmers. If we had not supported them in the early days, we would not have the prosperous and efficient farming industry that we have.

Mr. John Evans: In view of the absolute necessity for the Common Market countries to present and maintain a united front in discussions on trade matters with the United States and Japan, is the Prime Minister satisfied that her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can maintain harmonious relations with German Trade Ministers and with the European Commissioner for Trade?

The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that this country will maintain an advantageous and co-operative relationship in matters of trade, as in other things, in the European Community. In the past 11 years, the Government have achieved great things in Europe, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be widespread gratitude for her personal contribution to the summit—not least for her injection of a much-needed note of realism into the discussion of aid for eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? We simply cannot commit ourselves to carry an economy the size of the Soviet Union's. To do so through forced saving and taxation would have major recessionary consequences for us, while to do so by credit creation would have horrific inflationary consequences for the western world.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but that is not the only point. If the Soviet Union took up credit purely for short-term consumer goods, they would rapidly disappear from the shelves and it would be left with


an increased debt. We believe that its current total debt is already about £48 billion. Therefore, any extra that we give, on loan, should go to specific targeted causes.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Prime Minister accept that every sane person in this country is glad to see the coming together of the peoples of Europe, including the peoples of Germany? When she next meets Mr. Haughey, President Mitterrand and Mr. Kohl, will she feel it necessary to apologise to them for the words of her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has expressed his great regret and fully withdrawn his remarks. As I have said, they do not in any way represent the policy or beliefs of the Government, or mine. They do not represent any of our views.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her huge achievements. To avoid a possible misunderstanding with an ally, will she further clarify a comment made in America by one of her Cabinet Ministers, who said that American agriculture was aided to a greater extent than the EEC—especially in view of the fact that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report showed a difference of about 50 per cent. the other way? Does she think that the day will ever come when we have the same standards of accuracy and vision from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that we always have from the Treasury and from the Department of Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister: The figures that I cited were those of the OECD, with which I think we all agree.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 16 JULY—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Motion on the Care of Cathedrals Measure.

TUESDAY 17 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Motion relating to the Housing Renovation Grants Regulations.

WEDNESDAY 18 JULY—Opposition Day (19th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on community care.

Motion on the Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations.

Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

THURSDAY 19 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Government Trading Bill and to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill.

Debate on motion to approve the first report, Session 1989–90, from the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House.

FRIDAY 20 JULY—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 23 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome the fact that, on Thursday, we shall debate a motion to approve the Select Committee's report on televising the proceedings of the House. Will the Leader of the House confirm that, should the House approve it, that vote will be the end of any debate on the question in principle and that any further debates will simply be on procedural matters?
When will the Government make clear their intentions on the poll tax? It is intolerable that we have had to wait as long as we have, and it is particularly intolerable now, in view of the prevarication on community care. Surely the Government owe it to the thousands of people, the sick, the elderly and those who look after them, to make it plain exactly what the Government are back-tracking on on community care and their intentions on the poll tax.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the Dispatch Box to deal with a number of matters? He almost needs to be put on permanent standby. First, will he come here to explain his comments and apologise directly to the House rather than by means of long-distance press releases from Hungary, and to spell out the deep Cabinet splits on Europe?
Will he also, if necessary in a separate statement, spell out the further details of the £411 million in tax concessions on the Rover-British Aerospace deal, on which no one seems to be receiving details from the Department of Trade and Industry? He owes it to the House to explain exactly what has gone on. Is it not a peculiar state of affairs that the Government can always


find tens of millions of pounds for undercover deals, but are never able to find the money that is required for the health service or for community care?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That last matter has already been investigated and disclosed as far as is appropriate. There were no hidden tax concessions to British Aerospace or the Rover Group. Their tax affairs have been dealt with strictly in accordance with United Kingdom tax law, with the exception of a contractual arrangement which limits Rover Group's historic trading tax losses. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will be answering questions in the ordinary way next Wednesday and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said, he is still in Budapest.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and the Environment will be making statements to the House at the appropriate time on community care and on the community charge. The Opposition's decision to debate community care next Wednesday may well provide a convenient opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to deal with that.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response to the motion that I shall be tabling on the televising of the proceedings of the House. He is right to say that the vote on that will be yes or no on the principle of whether televising the House should be made permanent. The Select Committee recommends an answer yes to that question, arid if it is answered affirmatively, that will be the end of the matter, short of a decision to reverse it. Next year we shall be considering the mechanics of how to give effect to that decision in the most effective way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to get on to the debate on rate capping at 5 o'clock. Therefore, I shall allow business questions to go on for 20 minutes. I ask hon. Members to ask questions about business next week and not about other matters.

Mr. Roger King: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the arrangements will be if we continue the experiment of televising the House or make it more permanent? When would television resume broadcasting? Does it automatically cease at the end of the Session? If we approve televising, when is it likely to take place in a more permanent way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If we agree with the recommendations of the Select Committee, for the next Session, broadcasting will continue under the arrangements that currently exist, in exactly the same way as at present. The Select Committee on Broadcasting—as it will then become—will be considering in the early part of the next Session the best arrangements to put televising on a permanent footing.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Since the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just repudiated three pages of his own vitriol, which has been reported today, can I have an assurance that the Secretary of State will not disclaim reports in Hansard, on Thursday, of what he said on Wednesday?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No connection of that kind could possibly be drawn.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. arid learned Friend intend to draw the attention of the House to the motion on the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure on questions, which will save approximately £500,000? Ought that not to be on the Order Paper, so that it can be put into operation the moment that we return in October?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, I share his affection for the recommendations of the Select Committee on that topic, and I intend to table the necessary amendments to Standing Orders as soon as that is convenient.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise that the Leader of the House cannot speak for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but will he convey to him that the House expects him not to rely upon a vicarious apology, but to deliver a personal statement next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not for the Leader of the House to make arrangements for statements of that kind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will no doubt read Hansard, as other hon. Members do.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had time to examine the statement made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) last week in business questions about the pay of Members of Parliament, which my right hon. and learned Friend said he would consider? Can he say when it is likely that the allowances that we receive to pay our staff are likely to be approved for this year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Hon. Members' pay is tied, in the appropriate proportion, the national rate for civil service grade 6. Most civil servants with a settlement date of 1 April have settled. The settlement date for grades 5, 6 and 7 is 1 August. Negotiations are continuing. It is not yet possible to say what the revised salary of hon. Members will be. I should make it clear, in the light of what was said last week, that the introduction of merit awards for grade 6 will not affect settlements for Members. I shall look into my hon. Friend's point about staff pay and let him know as soon as possible.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week saying whether the Prime Minister and the Cabinet were aware of the contents of the article in The Spectator prior to the summit? If they were, did the Prime Minister inform Chancellor Kohl of the article, and the offensive remark of which he would be the subject? Did she know?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is surely clear from the way in which and the speed with which my right hon. Friend unreservedly withdrew his remarks. They were withdrawn as soon as they reached the light of day.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a serious and rising problem of under-age drinking, which is often caused by adults who buy drink and give it to under-age people, knowing that its consumption will not be supervised? is there time for a debate on this serious issue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the House is concerned about under-age drinking, whatever form it takes, but there must be a practical limit to how far we can supervise the extent to which everyone supervises everyone else.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the request for a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I emphasise that we do not want a personal statement because that would not be the subject of questioning and would finish the whole issue. The Secretary of State gave an interview related to his ministerial responsibilities—trading relations in Europe. We want a proper ministerial statement, subject to questions.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge the importance of the observation made not once but many times in the course of the afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that my right hon. Friend's observations do not correspond to Government policy and have been unreservedly withdrawn.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Leader of the House aware that many Conservative Members would be happy to give up some Government time next week so that the Opposition have the opportunity to make clear their proposals for the replacement of the community charge? Secondly, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members are happy to welcome the success of the rents-to-mortgages scheme currently being tested in Scotland? Will he make time next week for an early statement on that policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a statement on that, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already commended the case for a study of the Scotland experience. I do not think that there is anything that we can do to induce the Opposition to come here and give their proposals for the community charge.

Mr. D. N. Campbell Savours: The Government have totally underestimated the impact of the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Can we have a statement from him? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that, in every European capital, the Secretary of State will now be held in contempt? He will be viewed with suspcicion and treated with derision—yet he represents British interests. On behalf of British industry, the Government should sack that man, because he no longer represents British industry and trade.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is nothing whatever to be added to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about that. The Secretary of State's remarks do not in any respect correspond to Government policy. They have been unreservedly withdrawn, and the House will long wish that the day never comes when the hon. Gentleman becomes the spokesman for British trade and industry.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend initiate a debate next week on early-day motion 1263?
[That this House rejects the concept of trial by media; finds the personal attacks, smears and allegations against the national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers by unscrupulous elements of the media and two former

employees of the Union offensive; notes that payments have been made to Messrs. Windsor and Parker to make accusations against the national officials; further notes that the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; use bogus Soviet miners to make false allegations against the National Union of Mineworkers; congratulates the miners and their families for their magnificent fight against the Government and the full might of the state machine in the 1984–85 strike which cost the taxpayer £8 billion; welcomes the decision of the NEC to completely clear the national officials of the allegations published in the Daily Mirror and broadcast on Central Television's Cook Report; further notes that the sequestration and receivership of the National Union of Mineworkers' funds did not end until July 1986, and the continued legal actions on the charge of breach of trust against the national officials and trustees was not dropped until 1988; understands the difficulties faced by the Union since the end of the strike in which period all trade union loans have been repaid; and assures the National Union of Mineworkers of its full support in its struggle to defend the British coal industry.]
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this would be an excellent opportunity to discuss the extraordinary shenanigans carried on by the NUM and Mr. Scargill during the miners' strike a few years ago? Is it not truly incredible that 52 Labour Members are prepared even at this stage to associate themselves with and support the doomed and discredited Mr. Scargill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is absolutely right that there should be an investigation of the serious matters to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am sure that the House will feel that Members of the Opposition who are sponsored by that union should give particular attention to the matter.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Leader of the House aware that there has been a second serious spillage of oil in the River Mersey? Does he not agree that the measures taken by the National Rivers Authority are apparently not a deterrent to oil companies which encourage them to take the necessary safeguards? Will he press the Secretary of State to come to the House next week and make a statement on that serious matter so that things can be put right? The penalties appear to be as much of a deterrent as a slap on the wrist with a feather duster.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's propositions in the form in which he puts them; nor can I promise the prospect of a debate. However, I can certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the chairman of the National Rivers Authority and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week to allow a short debate on the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers to allow Opposition Members—not least the Leader of the Opposition—an opportunity to explain the uncomradely haste with which they are all queuing up to stick the knife into the NUM's leader? Only a few years ago, they were lionising him as a great hero of socialism and of labour, and the Labour party has always been happy to accept his funds.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in Government time, but there will be many


opportunities during the debate on the motion for the summer Adjournment and in debates on the Consolidated Fund to addres that issue.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House reflect on his response to the request for a statement on Government policy on the poll tax? May we have an assurance that there will be two statements—one from the Secretary of State for the Environment and another from the Secretary of State for Scotland? If notice is to be taken of the Scottish experience in respect of house purchase, the House should surely have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Scotland separately on the Scottish experience in relation to the poll tax and about the fact that 500,000 Scots are still resisting payment.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In so far as the territorial Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales can appropriately make separate statements, that will happen in due course.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to early-day motion 1263 in the names of 52 Opposition Members.
May I beg and urge my right hon. and learned Friend a third time to allow an early debate next week? That early-day motion is an insult to the people of Nottinghamshire, abuses the privileges of this House, impinges on the integrity of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, and would allow Opposition Members who were right up with the president of the NUM during the miners' dispute to support him still further. If and when he is impugned and has the handcuffs put on him, he will sing like a canary—and God help Opposition Members then.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern, not least in respect of what is said about members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. As I told the House when the matter was raised on Tuesday, I am sure that all who joined the UDM are profoundly glad that they did so. I hope that their colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers will continue to take effective action in their own union.

Mr. John Hughes: In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), May I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the Prime Minister attends a further summit. I refer to the summit that is the subject of early-day motion 1231.
[That this House is deeply concerned that an estimated one hundred million or more children will die of hunger over the next decade, if the unequal distribution of food and resources continues; recognises that Britain's commitment to the attainment of a humane solution to this pressing problem will be demonstrated by the Prime Minister heeding the call of the World Development Movement and attending the World Summit dealing with this priority issue on 29th September 1990.]
That summit will deal with the horrific problem of an estimated 100 million children who are dying of starvation. The Government can demonstrate their priorities by ensuring that the right hon. Lady attends that important conference.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give that assurance, but I promise the hon. Gentleman that the Government share the concern of the whole House about the threat of

starvation confronting children. We are contributing £8.3 million to UNICEF this year, plus additional funds in response to special appeals. We are also participating in the preparations for the world summit for children. The question of the attendance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the world summit has not yet been decided.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: As the Law Lords dance on the point of a needle in determining whether a 1972 Act of Parliament gainsays the provisions of a 1988 Act of this Parliament, may we have a Government motion, and a debate thereon, asserting the sovereignty of the British people in legislative matters, as endorsed in the expression "the sovereignty of Parliament"?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That question raises an immensely fascinating range of propositions. I would rather leave it with the Law Lords' recent judgment on the matter than attempt to comment myself at this moment.

Mr. David Alton: Reverting to an earlier reply by the Leader of the House, does he not accept that a spillage of 15,000 gallons of oil about 1 km long into the Mersey today represents an ecological and environmental disaster? Will be explain why no statement has been made this afternoon? Will he assure the House that the Secretary of State for the Environment will, when he visits Merseyside tomorrow on a scheduled visit, be asked to visit the site of that disaster and to explain why it is that Shell, which was responsible within the last 12 months for an identical spillage, could have allowed such an incident to have occurred again?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fully realise the importance to the communities concerned of such a spillage. If it is the case that a spillage on that scale has occurred in comparable circumstances to the one that happened not long ago, that is of even more concern. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's suggestions to the specific attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who will no doubt consider how he should react.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend himself explain next week what happened to the proposed new arrangements that he promised before Easter, to allow constituents to shelter from bad weather when visiting the Line of Route? Those arrangements have not yet been introduced, and it is high time that they were.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in that issue, and he will know that the completion of such arrangements seldom proceeds as expeditiously as it should. I shall look into the matter, and I will be in a position to answer him more directly next week.

Mr. Ron Brown: Surely the burning question of the hour is the poll tax—the so-called community charge. Criticism of it as being unjust and oppressive have been directed at the Government, and clearly it is unacceptable throughout the country. It is certainly unacceptable north of the border, where, according to capitalist law, the poll tax should not be imposed. It comes back to the point that this House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Member that we are to have a debate on that issue in a few minutes' time. The hon. Member must ask a question about next week's business.

Mr. Brown: If hon. Members choose not to pay the poll tax, what force of law will be used against them? I am one of those who is not only refusing to pay but telling the working classes not to do so and to fight back. What will the Government do about that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall study the text of the hon. Gentleman's remarks in Hansard, to see whether or not they contain a question that I might be required to answer.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Next week's business includes an Opposition day. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Opposition will set aside an hour and a half, say, of that day to allow Government Members to debate early-day motion 1263, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) referred, and the Scargill factor? Some of the contents of that motion would be deemed illegal in the private sector, and we want to debate that aspect next week.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend wants to debate that issue, but I do not believe that the particular device he has suggested is one that it is open to me to adopt.

Mr John P. Smith: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to allow a debate on the future of the Lome convention after 1992? The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be aware that more than 70 per cent. of the bananas imported into this country come from the Windward islands through the port of Barry. If the Lome convention is discontinued after 1992, that will devastate both the economies of our former colonies and trade in Barry. The House has not carefully considered the trading link between Britain and the third-world countries in the run-up to 1992.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As someone who studied the passage of banana boats to the port of Barry from my earliest childhood, I emphasise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's general point. I cannot give him an immediate answer on the Lome convention, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House make a statement tomorrow on the fact that, for the third time in as many months, it has been announced that the drinking water in Norman Shaw South is untouchable and must be boiled before being drunk? If the Mother of Parliaments is to be treated worse than a third-world country, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest a way in which right hon. and hon. Members can have bottled drinking water provided to them?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady will be glad to know that the Parliamentary Works Officer has informed the Serjeant at Arms that the Government chemist has now confirmed that the drinking water supply in the northern block of outbuildings has received a favourable test result and that drinking water supplies throughout the building are now perfectly safe and may be used without risk—[Interruption.] Let the hon. Lady be patient. Of course, I am no more delighted than she is that such reports have been made more than once in the past few weeks, and I shall certainly follow up the point that she has raised.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House make provision next week to allow the House to consider the EC regulations allowing VAT to be charged on electricity? If parish halls and village halls in rural areas do not use a certain amount of electricity, they could be charged VAT, and that would have a devastating effect on the economies of those villages. Will the Leader of the House provide time for us to discuss those important regulations which were introduced only on 1 July? Members of Parliament are now feeling the wrath of villages about VAT on electricity charges.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a specific debate on that, but it seems an appropriate subject to be raised in the debates on the summer Adjournment or the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall carefully keep a list of hon. Members who were not called today and I shall ensure that they will have some precedence at business questions next week.

Summer Adjournment

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 23 July. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Wednesday 18 July. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published the following day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) to allow me to finish my statement.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after I have dealt with the Statutory Instruments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions on statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1368) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Lead in Cattle) (England) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1391) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Welsh) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1082) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Inward Investment to Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales. be referred to a Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have said that those of us who have been standing all afternoon and have not been called will be given preferential treatment, will you consider extending that to your consideration of applications for the Adjournment debate? I wish to raise the subject of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation review conference which will take place before the House reconvenes.

Mr. Speaker: Let me look at the subject first and then I shall consider it carefully. We have to be fair to each other in the House and a great many hon. Members wish to participate in today's debate. Before we start, let me say that, if hon. Members were to limit their speeches to 10 minutes, I would probably be able to call most if not all of them, but not if I have too many points of order.

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would have raised this matter during business questions had I not been misinformed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asked a business question.

Mr. Douglas: My point of order is that the Table Office is not accepting oral questions because it has not been informed—and, to the best of my knowledge, nor has the House when the House will resume after the summer recess. That is causing considerable inconvenience to us all. The Table Office thought that the Leader of the House might be making such a statement today. Can we have some information now from the Leader of the House, or is he waiting for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to return from Hungary?

Mr. Speaker: It is a bit wide, but the House will be interested in that point of order. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will consider when he can make that statement, for the convenience of us all.

Orders of the Day — Community Charge

[SECOND DAY'S DEBATE]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[11 July]—That the draft Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.—[Mr. Chris Patten.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Patrick Ground: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, advanced the argument that the Secretary of State's powers to charge-cap should be exercised only in the event of illegality or fraud on the part of a local authority, and that short of illegality or fraud, local authorities should be allowed to spend to their hearts' content and the Secretary of State should rely on the principle of accountability and the results of local elections.
The principle of accountability is useful and important, but it should not be followed to its ultimate and logical conclusion. In areas of substantial overspending, a minority looks to central Government for a measure of protection against the excesses of overspending. Charge capping is a useful measure to protect that minority.
A community charge of £400 or £500 can represent considerable hardship to those on modest incomes who are not in receipt of community charge benefit. Hon. Members who say that it is wrong not to follow the principle of accountability to its logical conclusion are eloquent on the subjects of accountability and logic, but any success that we have achieved in regulating our affairs has often been achieved precisely by refusing to follow such principles to their logical conclusion.
Charge capping is useful to protect a minority, and in its influence in areas that are not charge-capped but where the minority is afforded a measure of protection by the influence that can be exercised by charge capping. That applies particularly to authorities that are not charge-capped but that are on the borderline of charge capping.
One example is the London borough of Hounslow, part of which I represent. There has been a Labour-controlled council since 1971. Hounslow has escaped capping in every year except one. Its experience of capping in that year makes it wish to avoid charge capping in future. Hounslow's expenditure is excessive by all the standards except the £26 benchmark. It is among the 12 authorities that have escaped capping by the skin of their teeth. Since the beginning of April, many of my constituents have asked me why Hounslow has not been charge-capped and why they have not been given the protection that has been afforded to charge payers in other areas.
In the local elections, the Conservative group on Hounslow council advanced a programme that would have reduced the community charge from £396 to £296. Its detailed programme would have avoided any substantial or significant cuts in services. It did not win the election, but the council is considering closely whether Hounslow can avoid charge capping for the coming year. The ideas

advanced by the Conservative group are of considerable value and will be considered by the majority group, but they should have been considered before the risk of charge capping arose.
The council is considering those ideas in the light of experiences of adjoining boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham. I have an interest in the outcome of Hammersmith and Fulham's case because as a resident my charge stands to be reduced from £424 to £325. Hounslow's residents have realised that the charge levied in Hammersmith and Fulham stands to be reduced to £325 and that as a result of the election in Hillingdon the charge has been reduced from £367 to £289. Those reductions have shown Hounslow council, which is on the borderline of capping, that other authorities can provide good services and carefully thought out programmes for significantly less than it is charging.
I was disappointed by yesterday's debate. We spent much time discussing the principles of capping and accountability but little time discussing the appropriateness of the level set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The debate is being conducted against the background of litigation, but I hope that when discussing appropriateness my right hon. Friend did not feel inhibited by the fact that charge capping will shortly be considered by the Lords of Appeal. It is difficult to discuss appropriateness, although in its judgment the Court of Appeal made it clear that it is a matter for the House. I hope that in future it will be possible to discuss the appropriateness of a capping order without the threat of litigation pending. It is better that litigation has been completed more quickly than in previous years, but it is still not ideal to discuss appropriateness when the orders are being challenged in the highest court of the land.
It is important that the charge-capping power is exercised appropriately and is seen to be exercised so as to allow much discretion and diversity to local authorities. Under the capping orders that have been made, whether we consider the difference between the standard spending assessments and the level of capping, the range of community charges or the gross totals, substantial local discretion and diversity remain. The difference between the standard spending assessments and the level of capping is substantial—£57 million in Avon, £72 million in Derbyshire and £40 million in Haringey. In Derbyshire, it is £72 million on top of an SSA of £448 million and in Haringey it is £40 million on top of £166 million. Therefore, there is a wide margin of difference.
That is borne out by the community charges that have been set in London, which range from £148 in Wandsworth to £502 in Haringey—a difference of more than £350 or more than 300 per cent.
If we consider the total overspending of authorities that have been capped and compare it with the amounts that have been lopped by capping, the same picture emerges. The local authorities that have been capped have overspent by £766 million. The capping proposals would achieve a reduction of only £214 million. Therefore, by the Government's definition, more than £550 million of excess expenditure remains among the capped authorities alone. The considerable powers that the Secretary of State has under the legislation have been exercised with considerable retraint. They have allowed much room for discretion among local authorities, variety in the community charge


and huge differences between what is deemed to be excessive expenditure and the level of expenditure at which capping bites.
That is one of the most important tests of whether the capping procedure has been exercised appropriately but in a way that is consistent with a lively operation of local democracy. Applying that approach of appropriateness, this has been a satisfactory exercise of the Secretary of State's powers.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Rotherham metropolitan borough council is not a high-spending authority, but even if it were I should be here to defend it because I believe profoundly in the right of every elected authority to determine the level of expenditure required to meet the needs of the people whom it represents and to answer for that decision to the electorate, not to the Secretary of State. My constituents did not elect the Secretary of State to control the affairs of Rotherham council. They elected councillors whom they can remove at the next election if they do not perform their functions satifactorily.
The Secretary of State said yesterday that Parliament creates local authorities, but it is fair to remind him that democracy in this country began at a local level, because there was democratic local government, admittedly in a primitive form, centuries before the first Parliament was established in Britain. We should keep that in mind.
Even in the exercise of the draconian powers that his misguided hon. Friends have given him, the Secretary of State has managed to get it wrong according to the standards that he claims to have set himself. He alleges that the order is intended to protect charge payers against high-spending authorities. That is manifest nonsense. Rotherham borough council set a poll tax of £334, far below the national average. That was far below the level set by many Conservative authorities and my reaction was that it was too low and would not raise enough money to provide the services that were needed. Nevertheless, I thought, "It's the council's decision; it's not for me to decide and not for the Secretary of State to decide." Far from being a profligate authority, Rotherham borough council—and I say this without wishing to offend—is a tight-fisted authority from time to time, partly because it has been robbed of millions of pounds over the past 10 years by successive reductions in the Government grant.
When I have a 97-year-old woman constituent who cannot get a home help to help out with the cleaning, I do not want any Conservative Member telling me that my authority spends too much money. That is a hopelessly ridiculous position and I hope that the Secretary of State will make an effort to find a proper explanation for his crazy decision.
I do not intend to repeat the statistical analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) gave to the House in his excellent speech last night. However, it needs to be emphasised that the so-called "standard" spending assessment is absolute nonsense. It is an absurdity. It is even worse than the old grant-related expenditure system—which was pretty awful—but at least the GRE system included unemployment as an indicator of social deprivation. The SSA does not, which is absurd.
When a system arrives at the conclusion that there is less social deprivation in Rotherham than there is in

Oxford, in Cambridge, in Cheltenham, in Kent, in Hampshire or in the Isle of Wight, we do not need to go further to demonstrate the nonsense of the system. In the case of Rotherham borough council, the changeover from GRE to SSA has made a difference of £5.3 million. which is equivalent to £26 per head on the poll tax.
Can the Secretary of State explain how the same Government can decide that this year, my authority needed to spend £5.3 million less than they decided that it needed to spend last year? How on earth can that be explained? That is how the Secretary of State has introduced his capping exercise. If that difference of £5.3 million had not been made, the council would have escaped his net. I should like a proper explanation of that at some stage. I do not suppose that I shall get it, but it is fair to ask for it.
The service that will suffer most is, necessarily, education because it is the service that takes the most money. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science some time back and asked whether he could personally justify the capping of Rotherham when the education authority covering his constituency spends more per pupil than mine, yet his authority has not been capped. My constituents' children will suffer under this arrangement, but the children in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Education and Science will not. I asked for a personal explanation, but he did not bother to write to me. He got the Minister of State to write a nonsense letter, which did not help.
The same Secretary of State is prepared to use the taxpayers' money under his assisted places scheme to send youngsters to private schools, such as St. Peter's school in York, where the fee is £4,872. My authority already spends less than £1,900 per pupil on secondary education and the Government tell me that it must cut that amount. How on earth can that be justified? It is disgraceful that the children of my constituents will have their educational resources reduced below the level that the parents' representatives on the council decided was necessary to meet the proper educational standard. It is absolutely wrong that Secretaries of State should have the power to override a decision made by the elected representatives. That is a gross abuse of power by a power-mad Government. Any Conservative Member who has a real regard for democracy must vote against the orders.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome the opportunity to support the stance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his charge-capping measures. The courts have decided that he exercised his powers properly within the law. He made one or two telling points yesterday. I endorse his point that local government has no powers other than the powers given to it by the House. We must accept and respect that. They devolve from the sovereignty of Parliament and should be considered in that light.
It is often overlooked that, where there is a double mandate—first, to local government and secondly, to national Government—the national Government's mandate must prevail over that of local government.
I recently introduced a ten-minute Bill dealing with universal capping. One of my suggestions was that, when the national Government were fighting a battle against inflation, the local councillors could not be immune from


tight fiscal management of their funds. Unfortunately, councillors feel that they are somehow immune, that they can turn their backs on the problems of central Government and the public's struggles against the high interest rates which are necessary to reduce our economic problems. But they cannot turn their backs and say, "We'll spend what we like, how we like," which totally ignores the problems we face as a whole.
The public must look at the local councillor who is as accountable as the Member of Parliament and as the Government of the day. One of the keys to that accountability is laid down in the community charge. The community charge cannot work properly, except in single-tier authorities. The local government elections in May in Westminster and Wandworth proved that, where there is one authority, it is clear what the public are voting for and they recognise where the services come from.
The best example of my point is my own county of Lancashire. The West Lancashire district council reduced its share of the community charge to just below the Government's estimate. Little credit was given for that, because the county council increased its share to £100 above what the Government's estimate was likely to be. As the notice for payment of the community charge was sent out by the district council and had its name on the top, it was the district councillors who stood for election who took the brunt of the public's displeasure over the size of the community charge. It was not their responsibility; the responsibility lay elsewhere. There must be a second plank of accountability in future.

Mr. Max Madden: The responsibility lies with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hind: No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not set a community charge in Lancashire that was £100 per head more than was necessary. It was set by Labour councillors, in county hall at Preston. The public must realise that, if we are going to make accountability work.
In future I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear it in mind that, if accountability is going to work, the public must receive two bits of paper through their letter boxes. The first will tell people that they owe the district council £37, as in my case, and the other will be from the county council telling them that they owe £335. If that were the case, the public would know what they are paying and to whom.
Those county councillors should not be able to sit back and say that they can charge what they will, because they know that it will be another three years before they are called to account by the electorate. Accountability must mean that they have to stand for election more regularly. They should stand for election in the same way that district councillors have to stand, one third each year. However, that is for the future. If that were to happen, the minds of those councillors would be focused. They would concentrate on more efficiency and better value, and they would think more accountably towards the electorate. They would be more careful about the demands that they place on people, and as a consequence, accountability would benefit.
The most important thing about capping is that it focuses the mind on the need for efficiency. Efficiency is

something which many local government officers in my experience do not seem to consider. For example, in Lancashire, a P and A report was commissioned which told the councillors that the meals on wheels service and the residential homes were a disaster. Effectively, they were high-cost services which delivered a poor level of service and the council was advised to take positive action.
I am sure that there are many examples of that around the country. Charge capping will focus the minds of local government councillors and officers on those matters, and that will result in better value for money for the public. Without capping, an awful lot of authorities will go their own sweet way, they will not consider efficiency. value for money or the service that is delivered to the public.
Charge capping has one big danger: some authorities may want to maximise the blame on the Government. They may say that they have asked for a lot of money, and the Government are to blame. Those authorities will look for the savings that will hurt the most and cause the maximum embarrassment, as they see it, to the Government. They will not look at efficiency.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) referred to home helps and to education. No doubt those areas should be protected. Councils should be looking to make savings in different areas. The total budget in Lancashire is more than £1 billion, and there must be savings which can be made, which should be considered long before the council considers the provision of home helps and education.
Councils must also consider whether they are doing things which are not the function of local government. They must consider whether they are doing things which should be the functions of industry or the voluntary sector or even central Government. In many cases, councils are trying to deliver services which are not their responsibility and should be provided by others.
If we are to have a positive approach and efficiency in relation to the service that is delivered, we will not need charge capping. Local authorities will focus their minds if a third of them are to be re-elected every year, rather than the ridiculous position now, when some counties have a two-tier electoral system. According to the figure given me by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities in a letter this week, Lancashire increased its expenditure last year by 20 per cent. How many of us in the House or in the community at large received pay rises of 20 per cent? That increase in the budget would have translated into an increase of one third on the rates, even before we consider the introduction of the community charge.

Mr. Allen McKay: They were cutting grants.

Mr. Hind: Not in Lancashire's case. It was a straightforward 20 per cent. increase in expenditure across the board. When inflation is running at between 8 and 9 per cent., that is completely unjustified. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of all that. Conservative Members realise what is happening, and if we are to have proper sensible local government in future, we must have charge capping. I gladly support the orders.

Miss Kate Hoey: Of all the debates that I have taken part in since I was elected to this House just over a year ago, this must be the most farcical. The Government introduced the poll tax. It was their idea and it has been their failure. At no time has it been supported by the Opposition. We have fought the unfairness of the poll tax. But these orders will drive a coach and horses through the very measure that the Government introduced to bring about so-called accountability for the local electorate. It is farcical that we should have this parliamentary time, short as it is, to discuss such a proposal.
The Government's poll tax levels in London are absolute fantasy. It seems that they have simply been plucked from a conjuror's hat. The standard spending assessment levels do not make sense. They do not add up, and they bear no relation to the actual expenditure or to the needs of each local authority. Therefore, they are bound to produce absurd anomalies.
The poll tax in my borough of Lambeth is £548, while residents in Wandsworth—we hear this over and over again—have to pay £148. However, in the local council elections in May, there was a swing to Labour of 1.5 per cent. The people in Lambeth voted in spite of that high poll tax—we know that it is high, and we did not want that high poll tax—for Labour. They understood the reason for the high poll tax.
Why did the Government see fit to subsidise the poll tax payers in Wandsworth by 300 per cent. more than they subsidised the poll tax payers in Lambeth? Wandsworth is getting £116 per person more in safety net payments. Lambeth is getting a mere £26. Would it not be simpler for the Secretary of State to admit that he is simply trying to score cheap political points? The Government oppose what Lambeth has been doing. If that is not the reason for what the Government have done, the only explanation can be that the SSAs were truly meaningless. If real spending and real needs had been taken into account in my borough, Lambeth would have received over £200 per head in safety net payments.
Lambeth is the fourth most deprived borough in the country. We have 37,000 households on income support and 65,000 people claiming housing benefit. Those are not just statistics: they are people, and families. Those people face the prospect of high poll tax charges which they know are a result of the Government's changes. It is a Government tax.
Since the abolition of the Inner London education authority, Lambeth is the largest education authority in inner London. We have therefore been disproportionally hit in Lambeth by the underfunding of education in London generally. In Lambeth, education will cost £11 million more than the Government have budgeted for. At the same time, on our borders in Wandsworth, with its very low poll tax, a consultation suggestion emerged last week that four secondary schools on the border with Lambeth will be closed. Wandsworth is reducing its education budget. Many parents in Wandsworth will send their children to Lambeth schools. That is a disgraceful manipulation of the education budget in Wandsworth.
As everyone knows, Lambeth suffers also because of the high level of homelessness. Waterloo and cardboard city are in our area. We have the largest emergency night shelter in London—people come from all over London,

and Lambeth has responsibility for those people. Lambeth, which has been underfunded and successively rate-capped, with hundreds of families in bed and breakfast, is now being poll-capped.
The sham of the Tory comparison between Lambeth and Wandsworth must be pointed out to show what Lambeth does that Wandsworth does not do. Wandsworth charges four times the amount that Lambeth charges for parental contributions to day nurseries. Meals on wheels in Wandsworth are nearly twice as expensive for elderly residents. Day care in homes for the elderly is free in Lambeth, but in Wandsworth it costs £4.95 a week.
Another unfair aspect for Lambeth is that county hall, the old seat of local government—the Greater London council—was abolished by the Tory Government. The Inner London education authority was abolished by the Tory Government. The London residuary body, an unelected and undemocratic body, received a backdated assessment on the rating value of county hall. As a result, Lambeth must pay back £5.5 million, and the Government have refused to consider centrally funding that reassessment. The whole £5.5 million charge will be payable by Lambeth residents.
Anyone who is seriously interested in fairness must agree that it is unfair that that £5.5 million must go on to the Lambeth poll tax. Lambeth borough has come through enormous difficulties. No one is complacent about services in Lambeth. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is complacent about the level of services in Lambeth. We all want to improve the position. Just when there was beginning to be light at the end of the tunnel—not just in my view and that of my hon. Friend—in January 1990 the district auditor himself said:
Although the council"—
that is, Lambeth
faces considerable problems, I am encouraged by recent initiatives to address the underlying weaknesses. This work is a major undertaking for the Council and I am hopeful that the initial progress can be maintained.
Just as we were beginning to see some progress, some real changes and some benefits in the coming year, Lambeth has been poll-capped and attacked again by the Government. After the motion is approved and poll capping is introduced, there will be no effect on the overall economic situation of the country. Lambeth will have to save £8.5 million.
My local authority is responsible and, if the motion is approved, will struggle to make reductions, but at what price? Facilities for the elderly will be reduced, swimming pools will probably be closed, library opening hours will be affected, and there will be administrative chaos. Ironically, those who can least afford the high poll tax that the Secretary of State wants to reduce will be hit hardest. They will be doubly hit: there will be cuts in non-statutory provision and so on. The Government's cynical action will not bring about the result that the Government hope. It will not make people in my borough vote Conservative. They proved that two months ago, and they will prove it even more resoundingly at the next general election.

Mr. Tim Janman: The local government finance legislation, which was passed a year ago, and the failure of the challenge in the courts, which proceeds day by day, clearly demonstrate that there is no question but


that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to bring forward the orders and to ask hon. Members to vote on them today. I make it quite clear that I shall support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby. One could even make the case that he has been quite lenient in the number of councils that he has capped, and not only in respect of the numbers but in the extent to which he has capped some of them.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) rightly said, if we examine the level at which some authorities have been capped and consider the difference between that level and their SSA expenditure per head, we shall note that there is a huge disparity. In other words, even if the ruling party in any of those authorities had set a level just below the cap and the Opposition had suggested a spend more equitable to the SSA, it would still have presented their electorates with a wide choice of what to vote for.
In the London borough of Hillingdon we have seen a practical illustration. The Conservative opposition are actually saying that the cap is over-generous. Now that they have taken power from the socialists—the people of Hillingdon have far more sense than the people of Lambeth—they themselves will be setting a community charge of £25 a head lower than the figure that my right hon. Friend suggested.
It is worth thinking about all the authorities that have not been charge-capped and whether, in future, it will be worth my right hon. Friend considering capping other authorities. Clearly, the impediment to doing that at the moment, and the reason why we are considering only 21 authorities, is the £15 million floor level on revenue budget, which determines whether an authority can be eligible for my right hon. Friend's scrutiny. For example, my local authority, Thurrock, is overspending by, according to my right hon. Friend's Department, £75 a head. On my calculation, when we include extra overcharging for the excuses of costs of collection and non-payment, it is overcharging by £91.77 per charge payer. On the Department's figures, the borough is overspending by 85.4 per cent. On my figures, if we take the overspend of nearly £92 a head, the percentage overspent is considerably more than 85.4 per cent.
Although we are not considering an order to cap my local authority, it and many others like it are massively overspending and probably employing twice as many people as they need and are not contracting out services to the private sector. Thurrock is seeking to build phase 3 of its office block development. According to one of my local papers, that could add anything between an extra £8 and £62 to the charge that each of my constituents must pay. Clearly, there is a strong case for removing the £15 million floor level and capping far more authorities. However, if my right hon. Friend does that, he should not cap any authorities to any great extent. There are three reasons for that.
First, although the concept of local government democracy is fine, in practice it is seriously flawed. In fact, the reality of local government democracy today is farcical. If my right hon. Friend caps more councils, he should do so in a limited sense. That would at least send a message from him and the Government that there is support for people living in those areas and that the

Government are prepared to step in and make sure that excessive spending is curbed. It would show also that the Government were on their side and were not leaving the matter purely to the mechanism of the community charge and the accountability that would be increasingly associated with it.
Secondly, if, in each instance, the cap is not great, and, to be fair, it is not in many of the local authorities that we are considering today, it would not wreck the principle of accountability—in other words, a small cap in terms of depth. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, it is unquestionable that the principle of accountability is clearly not diminished.
Thirdly, we should not provide a political hostage to fortune. In the 21 authorities and others that are being capped, and in others that would be capped if the £15 million floor level was removed, the socialists in those administrations and perhaps in some Tory administrations, to protect their empires and bureaucracies would say that they would cut services that residents were receiving rather than cut their own gross inefficiencies and overmanning.
Local government has enjoyed a massive increase in expenditure, year on year in real terms, not only prior to 1979 but even—sadly—since the Government came into power. Although there are genuine exceptions and some local authorities do a good job and are efficient, I submit that the vast majority are extremely inefficient and are ripping off their community charge payers as, in the past, they ripped off their ratepayers left, right and centre.
As well as considering an alternative to extending community charge capping, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider an even more radical alternative and to provide the people of any local authority area with the ability to cap that authority themselves. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could consider introducing a mechanism whereby, if any local authority sought to spend more than the SSA set down by the Secretary of State, it would have to ratify that by a binding local referendum before the expenditure and the budget could be implemented.
That would give the people of the area a real choice. It would refine and extend the accountability principle of the community charge. It would mean that the local people could answer one specific and simple question in the ballot box—do we or do we not agree with the Budget that our locally elected councillors have set for our authority? The local people would have the opportunity either of agreeing and ratifying those spending plans, or of capping the authority themselves and asking it to think again. That would be an interesting and workable extension of the principle of accountability in local government.
Although, as I have said, the concept of local government democracy is fine, today its delivery is seriously flawed. After all, local government exists purely to deliver services. It receives half its revenue, not from the local population, but from central Government. It receives another quarter of its revenue from businesses, which do not have a vote or a say in who is elected to run the local authority. Although some people will obviously change their allegiance when they vote in local elections because of what is going on locally from the party for which they voted nationally, the vast majority of people vote in a local election according to their normal political tribal instincts or because of what is happening nationally.
The percentage turnout also varies between the number who turn out to support the Opposition and those who


support the Government. I am not making a party political point because, when the Labour party was in government in the 1960 and 1970s, it suffered from that when it lost seats in local government hand over fist, and we have suffered the same reverse in the 1980s. The way in which people vote in local elections often bears little resemblance to what is happening or to the key issues affecting the local authority. It bears far more resemblance to what is happening nationally.
In conclusion, although I believe that my right hon. Friend should consider some radical alternatives, he is absolutely right to introduce the orders both in moral and in legislative terms. I shall support them.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall take no longer than the 10 minutes to which you have requested hon. Members to try to limit their speeches.
I totally oppose the order and, like others, will vote against it. I am not only opposed to poll tax capping; I am opposed to the poll tax. If the Government had not introduced the poll tax, we should not have poll tax capping now. The Government thought that the problems would be solved when the Secretary of State uttered those magic words, but as soon as the poll tax is introduced, the Government start to cap it. That is a sign of the complete inefficiency of the Department of the Environment.
The Government's method of assessing which authorities to cap is also unfair. No one can say that the standard spending assessment—the SSA, as it is known —is fair. if hon. Members want to know why it is not fair, they need only read the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) in the Hansard that is available today. He explained the unevenness and unfairness of the SSA so well. Hon. Members could also consider the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) just a few moments ago when he explained the total unfairness of this capping method.
The authority in which my constituency is situated, Doncaster, is not a high spender; it is a correct spender, and it is a caring council. I do not care how much a caring council spends, but if it is both caring and careful with its money, we should do nothing but support it. However, in March this year, Doncaster metropolitan district council accepted and approved a budget of £190.1 million for the year 1990–91. On 3 April the Secretary of State made an order to cap that budget and ordered a new budget figure of £178.5 million. That means a cut of £11.6 million. That is not a bad cap for a little northern town, is it?
The national average poll tax was £363 per head, but Doncaster's budget, which was approved in council, set a poll tax of £335 per head. That means that Doncaster had a poll tax per head that was below the average for the country. In that case, why cap it? It does not make sense. The reason can be only that the Secretary of State is being vindictive towards Labour local authorities. The facts cannot point to anything but that.
Let us compare some authorities. On 15 February 1990 the Community Charge Transitional Relief Report (England) was laid before Parliament. It set target poll taxes, as they have become known, which raise some important issues. Let us compare the facts with what was included in those provisions. It was said that Doncaster's

expenditure was 6.6 per cent. above target. I have to he fair and agree that that is right. It is also true that Doncaster's expenditure above target amounted to £54 per head. I am not arguing about that, but let us consider some of the other authorities that have not been capped.
Milton Keynes' budget was 98 per cent. above target, which meant £79 per head, but it was not capped. The Isle of Wight's figures were 17.6 per cent. or £108 per head above target, but that authority was not capped. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea was 16.7 per cent. above target or £189 per head, but it was not capped. There are many others. On those workings, to put it mildly, the Secretary of State's capping has been unfair. As I have said before, the reality is that the Secretary of State was being vindictive.
Doncaster's approved council budget was accepted by most people. I have chosen my words carefully because the budget was not accepted by the leader of the Tory Party in Doncaster. He said that he welcomed the capping. We now come to the May elections. The leader of the Tories had been a councillor since the district was formed in 1973. During that time, the Labour party has never won a seat in that ward. The leader of the Tory party, who agreed with the capping, lost his seat. That shows the local people's approval of the budget. That shows what the citizens of Doncaster thought about London imposing capping on them—

Mr. Irvine Patnick: By how many votes did he lose?

Mr. Welsh: As the Prime Minister says, "If I win by one, I win."
Doncaster should not have been capped. We are proud of our caring authority. We have one of the best nursery schools in all of Great Britain. The capping proposals may damage nursery schools. The Minister may not be bothered about the little kiddies in my area going to school, but I must make it plain that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North is bothered. We want nurseries for those kiddies so that their mums can have time perhaps to earn extra money. Nursery schools are necessary and the poll tax cap may infringe on that service.
Unemployment is still high in Doncaster. We have tried to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. We have done well but still it is not enough. In 1990 unemployment fell to 10.8 per cent. That was still twice the national average but we had brought it down. We have lost many jobs in mining and other industries. It was announced last week that the pit where I worked, Brodsworth colliery, is to be closed with the loss of 700 men's jobs. The Government's statistics did not take that into account. Also Hatfield colliery is to be slimmed down with the loss of another 200 jobs. In one week in my constituency, 900 jobs in the mining industry have been lost. That is what it is all about.
It is more money, not less, that local government in our areas needs. But we shall not get it. We are not begging; we simply ask to be allowed to spend more money for the good of Doncaster. It is Doncaster's money. The Minister has let us down. Most of the Department's junior Ministers have visited Doncaster. All were more than pleased at the way in which the local authority and the people of Doncaster are trying to make Doncaster a better place to work and live and winning at it.
We are proud of the area. We are a bit like the Scots. We are proud but a bit more careful with our money. We


do not spend foolishly the authority's money or our own. We never spend a penny where a ha'penny will do. We are not daft.
To show the Minister what Doncaster is like, to get itself going it has urban programme status, a derelict land programme, and an inner-city task force. It is part of an EEC integrated development programme. The authority has been asked and encouraged by Ministers, senior officials and representatives of the EEC Commission to get cracking. Yet the Secretary of State comes along and decides to confiscate £11.6 million of our money. That is a proper disgrace.
What is the truth? I do not wish to blame the Minister if he is not to blame. One must be careful. The truth is that she who must be obeyed has spoken. She said, "At least a score of authorities must be capped." There was only one golden rule: none of the capped authorities must be Tory. That is what happened.
Doncaster, with a community charge of £335, was capped. Luton, with a community charge of £402, was not capped. Southend-on-Sea, with a charge of £420, was not capped. Sandwell, with a community charge of £423, was not capped. That is what it is about. The Government are bumping the poor areas. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. No matter which way the Minister puts his case, the man riding on the South Yorkshire Transport bus will simply look at the figures and reach one conclusion. It will be, "Him in London hates us and won't let us develop our own area."
There is no logic in the capping except a perverse strain of logic that makes it necessary for the Secretary of State to protect the poll tax payers of Doncaster from a below average poll tax. That could happen only through political motivation.

Mr. Michael Stern: I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible in view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak. I represent a constituency that falls under two capped authorities—Avon and Bristol. I shall address my remarks principally to Avon, but I suspect that most would apply equally to Bristol.
In the run-up to the meeting in March at which Avon set its community charge, there was a great deal of discussion, first of the principles and secondly of the detail of how the new community charge system should work. Labour is the controlling group on Avon county council—I stress controlling group because although nominally the county is jointly controlled by the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups, in practice I have yet to witness an occasion when the Liberal Democrats said anything other than, "Me too."
In the run-up to that fateful meeting, the Avon councillors, not surprisingly, had many disagreements with the Government about the community charge. They made strong representations directly to the Government, civil servants and, indeed, local Members of Parliament about the matters on which they disagreed. But each time that disagreements arose, the House rightly made a decision on that disagreement. By the time that Avon met to consider its community charge, all past disagreements were wholly irrelevant.
That is the point that I wish to make. However much the controlling group on Avon disagreed with the principle of the community charge and the way in which its standard spending assessment had been reached and various regulations promulgated, that was not at issue. What was at issue on that night in Avon house was Avon's budget and the inevitable—I stress inevitable—level of community charge that would result.
The Avon councillors had two clear choices. They could set a level of spending that would inevitably, and entirely by their own choice—only they could avoid it—result in a community charge of £493 in Bristol. Or they could set a level of spending such as that offered to them by the Conservative group, which would set a community charge lower than the amount proposed in the order.
In accordance with what they considered to be right, the majority of the Avon county councillors decided to set the highest level of community charge proposed to them. It is not up to me to justify their decision. No doubt they considered that it was the right decision. They have tried to defend it on many occasions.
The reason why I am so much in favour of the orders before the House is that I represent several of the poorest areas in the city of Bristol, such as Southmead, Lawrence Weston and Manor Farm, all of which are by no standard to be regarded as wealthy. The people cannot afford a high community charge. I represent many people to whom the difference of £2.50 a week per couple, which is the difference between the community charge proposed by Avon county council and that which will apply after tonight's vote, represents a significant proportion of their disposable income. Those poor people in my constituency will gain from the orders.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House should not forget that this decision does not affect any of us personally. We all have a level of income that is considerably higher than that of the people to whom I refer. Avon county council deliberately decided on that night in March to take about £2.50 a week per couple away from such people, when by no standard could they possibly afford it.
The Opposition have argued that the Government are wrong to correct the decision taken by Avon on that night. Since the decision to cap was made, however, people have repeatedly asked how any democratic Government could stand by and watch the deliberate creation of poverty by a local authority. They asked how any Government could stand by and watch local authorities cause a serious, radical deterioration in the standard of living of those who are not in a position to defend themselves. Given that the Government have the power, those people questioned how they could stand by and do nothing.
I support my right hon. Friend and his colleagues because their decision to cap has protected the most vulnerable of my constituents. Surely that is the job of any democratic Government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who has just left the Chamber, believe that people are suffering, but it should be for those people to decide that. The hon. Member for Thurrock argued that a referendum should be held on the poll tax level that the Government had imposed on the local


councils, but his argument is wrong. If one really believes in democracy, one should allow the local council to fix its budget. It should then be left to the local people to decide whether they approve it.
We are not just talking about poverty and a cut in costs; we are talking about cuts in payments and services. There is not one example where that will not happen.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is outrageous that hon. Members should be asked to vote to cut spending by Southwark council, which will affect services in Southwark, when the Secretary of State gave no justification for that decison? Conservative Members do not pay the poll tax in Southwark and they do not know about the need for services, yet they plan to ride roughshod over local people. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a scandal that the Secretary of State did not mention Southwark once when asking the House to vote for the orders?

Mr. Hughes: This may be unique, but I agree with every word of the hon. Lady's intervention. Also unique is my belief that I am the only person to speak today—and yesterday—for the right of his local authority to make its decisions even though that local authority is not of the same political colour as himself. That local authority should choose how to set its budget, and democracy means that the people also have the right to exercise that choice.
The Secretary of State has told us that the poll tax was brought in as a means of bringing about accountability. Everyone has argued, however, that to say with one breath that it is a more accountable system, which allows the people to decide, and then to intervene, is inherently illogical. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is convoluted.
I understand the argument that the Government must limit the total amount of public money spent in the country, but if they had not given so much to the rich in the past 11 years, there might have been more money available for my constituents, who, by any definition, are still poor. I am not prepared for the Government to argue that they are justified in limiting total public expenditure when they have so distorted the balance of benefit derived from that expenditure in favour of the rich and against the poor. The Prime Minister's house is in our borough, and she and her husband, who are millionaires, will save hundreds of pounds. However, people on the basic state pension, without a penny in addition, must pay extra as a result of the order. That cannot be justified, and that is why the Government have found that their policy is so unsuccessful.
I do not seek to justify every decision taken by the majority Labour group on Southwark council. The Liberal Democrats are the opposition and they did very well in May—we won six seats, five from Labour in my constituency. The Tories did not do well. After the general election in 1987, the Prime Minister said, on the steps of central office, that they would have the inner cities for themselves next time. If a Tory stronghold of 8 per cent. on Southwark council means having the inner cities next time round, she needs to do a lot more thinking about the policies to achieve it. At the moment, the right hon. Lady is not persuading anyone that her policies are geared to help the people of the inner cities—the people who matter.
The Government should give local authorities a chance to have a say. They should not be fettered by Government

impositions. We will then have real democracy; the turnout at elections will increase, and we shall have proper accountability.
People want simple things—decent basic services. The inner-London boroughs should never have been capped this year because, having taken over education from the Inner London education authority, the amount they needed was unquantifiable. Southwark certainly should not be capped when, since the end of May, it has been 200 teachers short and it cannot find nursery teachers, and specialist music teachers, and it sends classes home. We should not be capped when we cannot keep our streets clean or provide decent services in our public parks. I hope that the Minister is listening, as he represents part of London. I know that he was put in his job belatedly and that all this was not his idea—I do not charge him with that.

Mr. Ian McCartney: He voted for it.

Mr. Hughes: ; I know, but unfortunately, many people vote for things with which they do not inherently agree. The pay-off for some of them is preferment, and that is more important.
Southwark should not be capped when it needs so much money for housing maintenance and the renovation of empty properties. We need so much money for social services, but, for the first time, we will now have to charge people for home helps. We need more sheltered housing. We need to employ more people to prevent children from being abused, and we need more help to alleviate drug problems. Southwark should not be capped when our libraries are to be closed and our swimming baths kept shut. How can we be capped when the local authority is taking on more charges every day?
This is an absolutely crazy system. Last year, the cost of collecting the rates in Britain was £181 million and the cost of collecting rubbish was £446 million. This year, the cost of collecting the poll tax is more than double the total cost of collecting rubbish throughout the land. That is madness. Last year in London, it cost £44 million to collect the rates and £106 million to collect the rubbish. This year, refuse collection will cost £119 million, but poll tax collection will cost £141 million.
So far this year, Southwark has collected 33 per cent. of its poll tax, but at the same time last year it had collected more than 80 per cent. of its rates. The business rate is still being paid, but the new system does not allow local authorities to administer it. Southwark is now to be capped, but we have been given no reason for that decision. We persuaded the Government to increase the amount that Southwark could charge, but no reason was given for that decision either.
The Government are intervening halfway through the council year to set a new budget. That causes chaos, as well as great harm to my local community. When the Minister makes his announcement tonight, I hope that he realises that, as long as the Government keep the poll tax and keep on capping local authorities, they have an ever-increasing chance of losing the next general election.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I shall keep my contribution brief, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends want to participate in the debate. I hope that Conservative Members will not take advantage of my


declaration by seeking to catch your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that they can keep the debate going until 6.30.
My local authority, Wigan metropolitan borough council, is to be capped despite the fact that, in England, 106 local authorities have levied a poll tax higher than that of my authority. In 1989–90, the Government set a rate support grant settlement for my authority of £74,578,000. One year later, despite the increase in inflation, the introduction of the Children Act 1989, the introduction of care in the community and charges to the authority resulting from the Education Reform Act 1988, the standard spending assessment set was £54,231,000.
In 12 months, the Secretary of State has determined that my local authority can provide additional services when its allocated grant is £20,500,000 less than that set in the previous year. That is not only financial nonsense but totally disrupts the provision of services in my authority. Eastern Europe is throwing over Stalinism, but the Government are acting in a Stalinist fashion by their gross interference in local government. With the poll tax and the poll tax cap, the Government are interfering in the provision and funding of services. The Government wish to intervene during the financial year to reduce local authority resources without reducing their commitment to provide services at an adequate level.
The Government have been exposed over the last two days of debate. It is no wonder that they wanted fewer Members to participate in it. Each time an Opposition Member has spoken, he or she has exposed the bankruptcy of the Government's policy on poll capping. More importantly, the contributions of Conservative Members have exposed the draconian nature of the Conservative party in the 1980s and 1990s. The Government are bringing more and more powers towards the centre, dictating and determining decisions that should be left to local decision-making processes. They show total contempt for the principles of local government.
If, throughout the end of their term of office, the Government maintain such interference in local authority decision making, I predict further Government losses at the local government elections next year. They will sustain substantial losses at the next general election, because they will not be forgiven for the way in which they emasculated local authority expenditure and deliberately connived to cut back on local authorities in the north of England.
It is no surprise and no coincidence that, in the band from central Yorkshire to Merseyside, the substantial majority of councils caught in the rate-capping exercise have been Labour local authorities that have set on or below the national average for poll tax. All of them have set a poll tax substantially below that of the majority of Conservative councils in England.
We are expecting the Government to introduce their care in the community proposals by 1 April next year, but due to the Government's draconian measures, my local authority has had £1 million arbitrarily withdrawn from its social services budget. That will mean the closure of homes for the elderly, deferring the opening of a spcial care unit for the mentally disabled in the community and the introduction of charges for day care, home helps and day care centres for the mentally handicapped. Those are not

"bleeding stumps"—by withdrawing grant to my local authority, the Government, by diktat, are cutting into its basic services.
I feel sorry for local authority members, who are volunteers working in the community. They give up time and effort from work, factories and families to provide community services. They are continually harrassed, harangued and tackled by a Government who, at every turn, attempt to reduce their ability and democratic right to provide levels of service based on the community's needs. Therefore, I ask the House to vote against the proposals on the basis that they are draconian, unworkable and totally unfair and unacceptable to the people of Britain.

Ms. Harriet Harman: In his speech yesterday the Secretary of State failed to justify why hon. Members should vote to impose a poll tax cap on Southwark council. None of the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the orders said why it would be right to cap Southwark council. Perhaps it is understandable that they have not talked about the poll tax or services in Southwark because, of course, they do not know anything about them. They do not live there, pay the poll tax there, use the services there or see the need for services that are not there. They know nothing about it. Therefore, perhaps it is fitting that, in commending the orders to the House, the Secretary of State did not even mention Southwark and why we should be prepared to justify poll tax capping there. To do so would be unfair, unjust and wrong.
Many Tory councils have far higher poll tax figures then Southwark's original poll tax of £390. For example, Windsor and Maidenhead has a poll tax of £466 and Wokingham has one of £454—the Secretary of State knows the list. The Government say that what counts is the amount of spending above the standard spending assessment. The Secretary of State knows that many councils spend more, in percentage terms, above their standard spending assessment than does Southwark council.
Capping is wrong for Southwark because of the costs it will impose on the council of rebilling all the residents of the borough and recalculating the rebates for those on benefit. It would be a huge administrative diversion and a waste of public money. The rebilling alone will cost more than £80,000.
Some Conservative Members talked about poll tax capping in the cause of efficiency. How can it be efficient to make a council, halfway through the financial year, suddenly make massive cuts in its services and budgeting? That throws all the borough's financial planning into chaos and means that short-term decisions have to be made. It is not easy for an organisation the size of Southwark council to make £11.5 million cuts halfway through a financial year.
I was talking to the chief superintendent in Peckham police station the day before yesterday about the worrying increase in crime in my constituency and the need for better street lighting, increased services for young people, better youth services and leisure facilities, and more resources for victim support schemes. However, none of those improvements can go ahead if we are poll tax-capped. People locally know the problem and the need for resources, but they are being prevented by the


Secretary of State's arbitrary action from planning and building up those services to improve life in the inner-city area.
Most of the cuts will fall on education and social services. We had a debate in the House recently about the chronic teacher shortages in primary schools in Southwark. The Secretary of State for Education and Science acknowledged that there was a grave problem and children were being sent home from school. Children go to school, but they do not even know whether they will have a teacher or be sent home. How can we attract teachers into inner London? We must provide extra housing, creches and a stable education service to attract them to teach in a district that will otherwise be under stress. How are we to do that when education will take the brunt of the cuts caused by the poll tax cap? During their term of office the Government have done many terrible things, but one of the worst in social services was planning to shelve community care proposals and use the most vulnerable people as political pawns to deal with Government difficulties over the poll tax. That is absolutely shameful.
The poll tax is fundamentally wrong and unjust, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. Capping doubles that injustice and disregards local democracy. The people who live and work in Southwark know more about what they need than the Secretary of State does. They elected representatives to make decisions about local services. Poll tax capping shows a disregard for local democracy and vital public services. I hope that the Minister will never again issue press statements about inner-city regeneration. How can he regenerate inner cities when he is undermining the infrastructure on which they depend?

Mr. David Blunkett: Tonight's debate and the orders on which we shall vote at 7 pm are an admission of the Government failure. They show the Government's failure first and foremost to persuade Conservative councillors that they should make sufficient cuts to bring the poll tax levels in Conservative-controlled districts down to the predicted figures that we heard about when the poll tax was introduced. I am timorous about mentioning the name of the previous Secretary of State for the Environment—I imagine that he may be the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by the weekend—who predicted in November 1987 that the poll tax would, on average, be £178. It is now double that figure.
It is galling for Ministers because their constituents want public services—basic education and social services care—as much as they want reasonable taxation. Therefore, Ministers were unable to persuade local councils to lower their poll taxes to the level that the Ministers wanted. The consequent pressure by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to use people as examples was intolerable.

Mr. Stern: I accept that in most areas there is a choice between services and the level of the community charge. What would the hon. Gentleman tell the people of Bristol who have to pay huge poll tax bills and have the dirtiest streets in the country?

Mr. Blunkett: My answer to that is as simple as my answer to all questions about poll tax capping. It is our job to make democracy work better, not to abolish it. In our

last debate on the issue a Conservative Member made the classic statement that poll tax capping could be removed when democracy worked better. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), said yesterday, we have made proposals to make that happen. We intend to introduce annual elections and to make the councillor's job easier. We shall provide for greater participation by people in the running of their services.
The Government's failure lies not in persuading Conservative, Labour or Liberal councillors to cut services but in the basic principles of the poll tax. The previous Secretary of State, the right honourable unmentionable, pronounced on 25 March that poll tax capping could not be justified. In a Radio 4 interview he made it clear that it was the job of the electorate to determine poll tax levels.

Mr. William O'Brien: Has he yet withdrawn that statement?

Mr. Blunkett: No, not yet, so we can presume it is still his view.
It is a correct view, because it is in line with the poll tax principles enunciated by Conservative Members, who said that it was supposed to bring accountability. The basis of the poll tax has failed. The Government also failed in setting an average poll tax of £360.
The Secretary of State and Conservative Members have admitted that the standard spending assessment is flawed and will have to be revised. I hope that the eventual review of the poll tax will include a clear statement about improving the formula for SSA and its distribution. Without that there can be no accountability and no judgment by local people about a reasonable level of efficiency.
The poll tax is flawed on the issue of fairness about what people pay and what they get. The Secretary of State has admitted that the assumptions on which the grant allocation was made were also faulty, because the amount that local authorities spent this year, and were predicting to spend, was £3.8 billion greater than the assumptions for grants.
Above all, the Government have failed on the cap itself. As we spelt out yesterday, because of the difficulty that is being experienced in collection, the cuts will not be made on poll tax ceilings. Last week the Municipal Journal conducted a survey which showed that, while there would. be a £216.7 million cut in poll tax, an increase in collection difficulties would cost authorities £327 million in uncollected tax. That is a crazy way to organise a supposed cut in taxation and action against inflation, which is one of the arguments that has been advanced in the debate.
Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said that Brent people would be dancing in the streets. They may dance in the street for another reason. because a recent ICM poll puts Labour 16 per cent. ahead of the Conservatives. That would justify people dancing in the streets. They certainly will not dance to celebrate increased bureaucracy and higher administrative costs or to rejoice at having experienced 11 years of local authority cuts, penalties, grant reductions and changes in the assessment levels.
Some authorities such as Islington are being capped simply because of the change in the grant-related assessment formula relative to the standard spending assessment, and the difference between the SSA in


November and the one in January. That is a crazy way to hold people to account for determining what happens to their services.
It is unmistakable bias to cap authorities such as Calderdale, Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham, which have below-average poll tax levels. That is inexplicable to an authority such as Calderdale which had imposed upon it a poll tax of £244, which is fourth from the bottom. The tax in Windsor and Maidenhead is £449 and authorities throughout Surrey and Buckinghamshire have poll tax levels that are double those being imposed in other areas. What sort of services are some authorities expected to provide compared with those provided in the south-east?
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said that none of us is affected by the cap, but he has missed the point. Of course we can afford to pay the poll tax, we are all recipients of services and some of us actually send our children to state schools. We know exactly what poll tax capping will mean to those who will have their education services reduced. Many people have elderly parents and cannot afford to place them in the most prestigious private residential homes and would not want them to be in such places. Those people want their elderly parents to be supported in the community by day centres, home helps and special aids and adaptations and by the range and choice of services that local authorities now provide. Councils do that by spending on services.
That is what the debate should have been about, but in his hour long peroration yesterday the Secretary of State did not talk about services at all. The debate is not about poll tax levels, which vary enormously and the highest of which have not been capped. The debate is about whether the Government will inflict their cuts and their ideology on those who failed to vote Conservative in the local elections. All the mumbo-jumbo that we heard yesterday about court cases and the football match where penalties were taken during the game rather than after extra time and in which the goalkeeper was removed by the referee so that the other side could win is irrelevant.
The Secretary of State has said that he determines what is excessive. That is like "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" where words mean what one says they mean. He is saying to children and parents that they will have the standard of education that he determines and not the one that they want.
I have been invited to speak at Roedean, and I have carried out research into that school. The fees are £2,700 a term and there are incidental expenses for music and sporting activity. I do not know what those things cost, but altogether the charges are certainly more than £2,700 a term. The average state secondary school cost is between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. We can also compare what people want for their children. It has already been said that the average cost to us all of assisted places is £3,400, and that people receive charitable relief on the money that they spend on their children's education. All that we demand is that people should be allowed to choose for themselves, but the Government have decided to choose what is right for those people and their parents and families. They must have decent standards of service.
The people that we represent cannot opt out and buy in the private market, or discard public service; they are dependent on the level of service provided by their local

authority. Millions of people throughout the country will be affected by what is happening tonight. They will have their services reduced without any choice and without the right to decide. To take away the ballot box is to take from most people the last vestige of control over what happens to their own lives in their own community, because they do not have the wealth to use their money as their vote in the market place.
The debate is about ideology—I do not duck that issue —and about decisions on what happens to individual men and women. It matters to every one of us. Conservative Members who have spoken gave the game away. Eulogising about the cutbacks in Hillingdon, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) admitted that £2.5 million would be cut from the £32.8 million budget of the social services committee. He may think that he is speaking for Hillingdon council, but some of us would like to feel that we have a right to speak for the elderly and infirm people who will suffer from a 7.5 to 8 per cent. cut in services. Even the hon. Gentleman admitted that, under the present standard spending assessment, it would not be possible for Hillingdon council to reduce the community charge without changing the level of services provided—that is a euphemism for cutting services.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there would probably be some job losses. I think that that is a considerable underestimate. What is more, he announced that there would be an increase in education spending. I mention Hillingdon only because it is being held up as a paragon of virtue. Hillingdon is doing what the Secretary of State for Health has been doing: it is cutting education services to pretend that it is spending more money on them. The policy is to close schools, cut adult education and increase charges, then spend slightly more on other schools and proclaim the cut as not a cut but an increase in service. That is what the Department of Health is doing across the country.
Above all—my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) mentioned this—the idea of chopping the community care proposals to try to lower poll tax levels by an average of £15 a head is a shoddy, shabby move, and one that I hope that the Government will come to regret. It affects the people who most need help. Their needs do not go away; their problems do not change; their family pressures do not alter because they happen to be saving £15 on the poll tax.
The daftest thing of all is the formula on which our authorities receive their grants to provide our services. There is something called the social deprivation index—it is known officially as the all-ages social index. On that are predicated the decisions about what authorities will receive. Can anyone imagine an index that has as the worst off those authorities that have benefited most from Government aid in one form or another, and penalises those in the most rundown industrial parts of the country? According to an answer given on 27 June, Wandsworth was eighth in the index, Kensington and Chelsea ninth and Westminster 12th; Rochdale was 45th, Calderdale 77th and St. Helens 87th. Barnsley, which was 172nd on the list, is poll tax-capped and penalised. While the people of Cheltenham can live in comfort with adequate grant to look after their gardens, Barnsley, Rotherham, North Tyneside and St. Helens face cuts in education and social care on an ideological whim of the Prime Minister's, imposed by the Secretary of State.
There is an alternative: it is democracy. There should be no cuts, no capping and no erosion of the right to decide locally on services, but a removal of central authoritarianism and of the right to decide from the House of Commons and from Whitehall. A decision must be taken to put back that which we have all fought to achieve—the right to choose for oneself.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I was asked to explain the criteria that the Secretary of State had selected. Those criteria were based on overspending above-standard spending assessment—the estimate that the Government make of how much it is appropriate for local authorities to spend. The SSAs were applied equally to all authorities in the country. The criteria were in the distribution report that the House debated and approved. Preceding that debate, 100 different papers of analysis had been circulated, and 40 meetings were held with local authority associations to determine whether those criteria were appropriate.
The new SSAs differ from the old grant-related expenditure assessments—the previous method of assessing need—in that they place a new emphasis on additional educational needs and on the needs of ethnic minorities. Those criteria, surely, should commend themselves to the Labour party. Clearly, they remove any disadvantage that the old system may have caused inner-city areas. That is well demonstrated by the Government's assessment of need for the inner-city areas: in Islington, it is £1,172 per adult; in Haringey, £1,181; in Lambeth, £1,392; by contrast, the figure for Wandsworth is £982—fully £400 below the Lambeth figure.
What happened between the old assessment and the new one will, I hope, be of interest to Opposition Members. The borough of Brent has a new needs assessment 20 per cent. above the old one; Southwark's is 26 per cent. above the old figure; Islington's is 28 per cent. above—I do not know what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to. Haringey is 20 per cent. above and Lambeth 26 per cent. above its old assessment. I admit that the northern metropolitan boroughs do not do as well out of the new system as the inner-city areas—not only London but Liverpool and Manchester, where there are single-parent families, ethnic minorities and strongly identified additional educational needs.
However, the northern metropolitan boroughs do not do all that badly. All their new assessments are above the old GREAs. For example, Rochdale is £49 per adult above, and Rotherham £38 above. I admit that Wigan is the lowest, at £10 above, but Doncaster is £36 above—

Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: I wish to keep going, as I have not intervened in two days, except on the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott).
I want to disabuse the House of one more idea—that the northern metropolitan boroughs have set low community charges. Let me also make it clear that capping applies to budgets and not to community charges—to what councils are spending, not to what they are charging. The reason for that is obvious. In the first year, many authorities are receiving funds from the safety net, or receiving special grant because they are authorities with a

low rateable value. When the help given in the first year, and the help that in the second year will be given by the taxpayer, is stripped out, community charges for the northern boroughs do not look half as good. The lowest figure is that of St. Helens, at £433; Calderdale's is £460; Barnsley's is £480; and Rochdale's is £458. In case the House thinks that I am directing my fire at the northern boroughs, I am not being so exclusive. In Southwark—

Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: In a moment.
In Southwark, if we strip out the grants that are being made this year from the safety net and additional factors, the figure is £607. In Greenwich, the figure is £700.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about Westminster?

Mr. Portillo: The House may know that Westminster makes the biggest single contribution to the safety net of any borough in the country—£75 per head—I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has kicked the ball into his own net.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that the increase in the budget placed before the people of St. Helens in March this year was less than the rate of inflation? Will he also acknowledge that, if the formula used for GREA had been used this year in St. Helens and Westminster, St. Helens would have received a substantial increase in Government support and Westminster would have received substantially less?

Mr. Portillo: I have given the hon. Gentleman the facts. If St. Helens were not receiving help from the safety net and in grant, the charge would have been £433. That helps to illuminate a point that seems to have troubled the House—why charge capping is compatible with accountability. It is because, in the first year, when the Government arranged for many authorities to be protected by those special arrangements—I am not even mentioning for the moment the transitional relief which goes to the charge payer—it is not clear to the electorate how high those community charges are. It has been demonstrated today that that is not clear to hon. Members either. They do not understand how high the community charge is in their areas.
We took the criterion of spending 12.5 per cent. above the new assessment of needs, the SSA. That 12.5 per cent. was in line with the same criterion that we used in the case of rate capping over many years. It can hardly have been a surprise to anybody that we used SSAs as the basis for capping, because SSAs were designed with great care to represent the needs of local authorities. Haringey's director of finance issued a report dated 2 March 1990 in which he said that the council must be extremely vulnerable to be subject to community charge limitation on the basis that the £573 may be considered to be excessive. The treasurer apparently knew, so I do not know why the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) thought that it would be a surprise.
The assumed community charge, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, was not the basis of capping; it was the basis on which the Government gave welcome and valuable help to people to compensate them for the change from rates to the


community charge. It took account of massive overspending by local authorities under Labour control in the past. Now the Labour party seeks to ram down our throats the fact that we made a realistic transitional relief provision based on that overspending. But we also made it perfectly clear that that would not be the basis on which we would cap.
Counsel representing Derbyshire county council in the courts recently made it perfectly clear that he was not accusing the Government of political bias, so I am surprised that Opposition Members have sought to run that one. If counsel representing Derbyshire made it clear that he was not accusing the Government of that, I do not know why Opposition Members seek to do it here. Perhaps it is because the standards of proof here are less rigorous than in a court of law.
My next question is: are the caps attainable? The hon. Member for Dagenham gave the game away entirely when he said that, if the local authorities had known in advance how charge capping was to apply, the vast majority of charge-capped authorities would have had no difficulty in avoiding the cap level.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said:
I know that my party's group in St. Helens … believes that it can provide the same level of service for the lower amount."—[Official Report, 11 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 350.]
Apparently it can be done in St. Helens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) said:
there was and still is a budget on the table that would bring Calder Valley's expenditure down to a figure below the charge-capped rate with no loss of services or jobs."—[Official Report, 11 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 373.]
My hon. Friends the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) made similar points. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) explained how Hillingdon today had better management techniques and had abolished all those unwelcome committees that consume money.
If the SSAs were wrong, one would think that other authorities in the north of England would have had difficulty in staying close to them. But Bradford is only 3 per cent. above its assessment of need, Manchester is only 3.9 per cent. above its assessment of need, having said some months ago that it would be 30 per cent. above, and Conservative-controlled Trafford is 2.6 per cent. below our assessment of what it needs to spend.
It is clear that our assessments of need are not wrong, the criteria are not wrong—it is the spending which is excessive. That point was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who both said that the Government were using their powers moderately.
Why should the Government choose to cap at all? First, the Government must have a view about the level of public spending. That point was extremely well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). The hon. Member for Dagenham ignored the point and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who is a member of the Labour Treasury team, is mystified by the point, which gives me some misgivings about the conduct of their financial policy.
Secondly, we need to protect the charge payer. The hon. Member for Dagenham recognises that capping is needed in extremis. The hon. Member for Southport said:
There is much argument about whether reserved powers to cap are ever justified and, although I am in danger of contradicting myself, I suppose I must come down in favour of such powers."—[Official Report, 11 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 348.]
He was absolutely right. It is a point that was well made.
Why so? Because it is clear that some authorities have taken advantage of the changes in the system in order to blame the high levels charged on the Government and the change in the system, not on their high spending. Some authorities—many of my hon. Friends talked about Derbyshire—clearly face no election in the foreseeable future, so they felt that they could pile on the charges. Many authorities were receiving special help with the charges—the safety net payments and the grants made for low rateable value—so the community charge was distorted. Many boroughs expected to win the coming elections out of a misplaced traditional loyalty to Labour whatever they did and in many places large numbers of electors faced reduced charges because of the benefit that they were receiving, which was much more generous under the community charge than under the rates and because of transitional relief.
None of that took account of the charge payer. It was only Conservative Members who mentioned the interests of the charge payer. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) said that he felt desperate on behalf of the charge payers of Lambeth. My right hon. Friend for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said that many people were brought into penury by the heavy rates and the community charge in Brent. In other words, the problem did not begin with the community charge, but long ago with the rates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said, thank goodness the Government had not messed about with a small reduction. He wanted a £99 reduction because that was £198 per couple in his constituency. My hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) made similar points. Our concern has always been with the charge payer. We have heard nothing at all throughout the debate from Labour Members about the concerns of the charge payer.
I have no doubt that the community charge will achieve its objective of increasing local authority accountability. We have seen that already in the moderate increases in Scotland in the second year. We have seen it in London, not only with the defeat of left-wing Labour councils at the recent elections, but also in the relative moderation which has been shown by one or two Labour and SLD-controlled councils which have been concerned about re-election and have set lower charges.
In time, the effect that we have seen in Scotland and in London, affecting not only Conservative boroughs but Labour ones too, will spread to the rest of the country. But for the moment there are factors that obscure accountability—the special grants that I have talked about and the safety net; the changes that have been made to the system, giving boroughs the opportunity to blame the system, not their own overspending; the counties not facing election, and the fact that the counties are not seen as responsible for the level of spending for which they are in fact


responsible. Some councils this year have abused those factors in order to impose swingeing burdens on their community charge payers.
Some councils are clearly planning to do the same next year, but we give this promise. The Government will not stand idly by and let that happen. The Government must protect the community charge payers, because we care about them and the Labour party does not. This year capping has been worth up to £198 per couple and next year we are prepared to take action once more if authorities continue to behave in this unreasonable way. For that reason I have no hesitation in commending the draft orders to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 210.

Division No. 290]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Conway, Derek


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amos, Alan
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cran, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ashby, David
Curry, David


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Atkinson, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fallon, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Farr, Sir John


Body, Sir Richard
Favell, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bottomley, Peter
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fox, Sir Marcus


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Franks, Cecil


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Freeman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
French, Douglas


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gardiner, George


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burns, Simon
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian


Butler, Chris
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hannam, John





Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neale, Gerrard


Hill, James
Needham, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Nelson, Anthony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Norris, Steve


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Page, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Irvine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Irving, Sir Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Janman, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Powell, William (Corby)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Redwood, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Kilfedder, James
Riddick, Graham


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rost, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb")


Lightbown, David
Shelton, Sir William


Lilley, Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter






Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Warren, Kenneth


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thorne, Neil
Wheeler, Sir John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trippier, David
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wood, Timothy


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (T'side North)



Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Ward, John
Mr. Tony Durant


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eastham, Ken


Allen, Graham
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Alton, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Anderson, Donald
Fatchett, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Hilary
Fearn, Ronald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flannery, Martin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blair, Tony
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Blunkett, David
George, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bradley, Keith
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Carr, Michael
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr, Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dixon, Don
Lambie, David


Dobson, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted


Doran, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Douglas, Dick
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken





Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Reid, Dr John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Richardson, Jo


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum A.
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Joan


Murphy, Paul
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Nellist, Dave
Wareing, Robert N.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter L.
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, Jimmy


Primarolo, Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Redmond, Martin
Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [10 July] , to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining motions.

Question put,
That the draft Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) (No. 2) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 207.

Division No. 291]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Allason, Rupert
Baldry, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Amos, Alan
Bellingham, Henry


Arbuthnot, James
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boscawen, Hon Robert






Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carttiss, Michael
Holt, Richard


Cash, William
Hordern, Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chope, Christopher
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Sir Charles


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evennett, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Favell, Tony
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)





Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mellor, David
Speed, Keith


Miller, Sir Hal
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain
Squire, Robin


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stokes, Sir John


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Paice, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Irvine
Thorne, Neil


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Redwood, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Riddick, Graham
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wells, Bowen


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wheeler, Sir John


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shelton, Sir William
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Sims, Roger
Mr. Tony Durant.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bidwell, Sydney


Allen, Graham
Blair, Tony


Alton, David
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Donald
Boateng, Paul


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyes, Roland


Armstrong, Hilary
Bradley, Keith


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Gordon (D"mline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barren, Kevin
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D.N.


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carr, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)






Clay, Bob
Lester, Joan (Eccles)


Clelland, David
Lewis, Terry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Coleman, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
McCartney, Ian


Crowther, Stan
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cryer, Bob
McFall, John


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Douglas, Dick
Martlew, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Faulds, Andrew
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fearn, Ronald
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliot


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galloway, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gordon, Mildred
Primarolo, Dawn


Gould, Bryan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Robertson, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rogers, Allan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rowlands, Ted


Henderson, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Sheerman, Barry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hood, Jimmy
Short, Clare


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Spearing, Nigel


Illsley, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Janner, Greville
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lambie, David
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Leadbitter, Ted
Turner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Vaz, Keith





Wallace, James
Winnick, David


Walley, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N.
Wray, Jimmy


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)



Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Wilson, Brian

Questions accordingly agreed to.

Question put,
That the draft Charge Lamination (England) (Maximum Amount) (No. 3) Order 1990, which was before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 201

Division No. 292]
[at 7.26 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Conway, Derek


Allason, Rupert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon John


Amos, Alan
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Curry, David


Ashby, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Atkins, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David
Day, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Fallon, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Farr, Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Tony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Body, Sir Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowis, John
Franks, Cecil


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Roger


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
French, Douglas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, George


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Gow, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butcher, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Ground, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cash, William
Hague, William


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan






Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Price, Sir David


Irving, Sir Charles
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Janman, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Rowe, Andrew


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speed, Keith


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Witson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stevens, Lewis


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Maples, John
Stokes, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Summerson, Hugo


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Sir Hal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Moate, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thorne, Neil


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David





Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Walden, George
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wilshire, David


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Ward, John
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Warren, Kenneth
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, Sir John
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Whitney, Ray



Widdecombe, Ann





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Flannery, Martin


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fyfe, Maria


Armstrong, Hilary
Galloway, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
George, Bruce


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beckett, Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bradley, Keith
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Buckley, George J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Canavan, Dennis
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Carr, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coleman, Donald
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cousins, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cox, Tom
Lambie, David


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Doran, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Douglas, Dick
Macdonald, Calum A.


Duffy, A. E. P.
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
McLeish, Henry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fearn, Ronald
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric






Maxton, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wallace, James


Patchett, Terry
Walley, Joan


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter L.
Wareing, Robert N.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Redmond, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Reid, Dr John
Winnick, David


Richardson, Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robertson, George
Worthington, Tony


Rogers, Allan
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, under the doctrine laid down in "Erskine May", on a Division it is usual for voices to be followed by a vote. As you may recall, there has been some considerable argument about ten-minute Bills on that point. As I understand it, the Liberals called a vote on the first order, yet the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) was in the Tory Lobby on all three orders, which suggests that he did not follow the group voice and that the Liberals are badly split, which is, to say the least, disturbing.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman is making a political point. He knows full well that it is not a point of order with which the Chair can deal.

Orders of the Day — London Underground Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

[Relevant document: Third Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) of Session 1989–90, New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) and the Jubilee Line Proposals (HC334).]

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Speaker has selected the instruction in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore):
That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to the need for regeneration of local communities and local industries in and around the areas of London Dockland and Lower Lea Valley.

Mr. Thorne: I have read the instruction and I have considerable sympathy with the terms in which it is expressed. I will listen with great interest to what right hon. and hon. Members have to say in that connection. The instruction has considerable merit.
London's rail services play a vital part in the city's economy. There has been unprecedented growth in passenger demand on the underground and it is widely accepted that new and improved services are needed. Two main types of improvement can be identified: those that seek to tackle congestion in central London, and those provided to meet the needs of new developments.
Last year, the Government commissioned two major studies: the central London rail study, which concentrates on congestion and ways to tackle it, and the east London rail study, which focuses on the needs of docklands. The enormous scale and rapid pace of the regeneration of docklands now far exceeds what was expected in the early to mid-1980s, when the current programme of investment was planned, which led to the construction of the docklands light railway. The east London rail study examined the options for improving rail access from central London to docklands and beyond.
The preferred option was for an extension of the Jubilee line from Green Park via Waterloo, London Bridge and Canary Wharf to Stratford. Over this last section, the route could go either via Greenwich Point or via Brunswick Foreshore. By linking to the existing Jubilee line, which runs through the west end to north-west London, with its important connections to the rest of the underground system at Baker Street, Bond Street and Green Park, the benefits of the extension could be increased. New connections would be provided in the central area at Westminster, Waterloo and London Bridge. In addition, the proposal would benefit commuters travelling to the west end and docklands, as well as many residents of inner south London, who are not currently served by the underground.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals most warmly. Will he commend to the engineers, despite the technical difficulties, the needs of wheelchair users? There might be a way of having an emergency walkway to ensure that wheelchair users of the London underground—and especially of the new extension—can get out in an emergency.

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is a well-known champion of the disabled. I will ask the engineers to take careful and special note of what she has said. However, we are extending an existing line, so to some extent we are inhibited by the standards already laid down.
The proposal is to extend the Jubilee line from Green Park to Stratford. Stations at Westminster, Waterloo, London Bridge, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford would not only provide access to the areas they serve, but would provide important interchanges with other lines. The Bill also provides for other stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, and I shall return to those proposals a little later.
The extended line would be a major east-west trunk route, fed from major routes into London and offering a fast, high-capacity service with direct connections between docklands and numerous important strategic locations in London, including direct connections to the west end, to west and to north-west London, via Westminster and Green Park. The line would offer direct connections to Waterloo, serving the commuter suburbs to the south-west of London and giving access to the proposed channel tunnel terminus. It would offer direct connections to London Bridge, serving the commuter network to the south and to the south-east of London, and direct connection to the commuter lines from Essex via Stratford and West Ham. The Bill provides for an extension in tunnel south of Green Park as far as Canning Town. From there it would run on the surface parallel to the existing tracks for British Rail's North London line to Stratford, where it would terminate.
The proposed extension has raised a number of concerns, which the promoters acknowledge and are addressing. The first concern is the re-routing of existing Jubilee line services into Charing Cross. Heavy passenger flows are expected between the existing and new sections of the Jubilee line. To meet that demand, it would not be possible to provide a service from north-west London to Waterloo and docklands as well as a service to Charing Cross. Accordingly, it is necessary to close the existing service on the Jubilee line between Green Park and Charing Cross. However, passengers who currently change from the Jubilee line on to the Northern or Bakerloo lines at Charing Cross, and the many British Rail passengers who join the Jubilee line at Charing Cross, will be able to do so at London Bridge or at Waterloo.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact that after that part of the line is closed there will be a loss of service? Transport 2000 strongly wanted that line to be kept open. Is the hon. Gentleman supporting its closure?

Mr. Thorne: Yes, with regret. I should like to give happier news to the right hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, if we were to try to feed trains into Charing Cross as well as round to Stratford, we should severely impair the efficiency of the line. The matter is always open to future consideration, but the original intention was that the line should form part of the Fleet line and should travel on the north side of the Thames. This is a wonderful opportunity for it to go to the south; and, of course, the docklands light railway was subsequently introduced.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a third option could be available when the Green Park-Charing Cross section is

replaced? There could be an interchange between Waterloo, East and Southwark stations. That would provide an additional opportunity for people to change from the underground to British Rail services and would alleviate congestion, which will be considerable when channel tunnel traffic comes to Waterloo.

Mr. Thorne: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents and I sincerely hope that a way will be found for stations to be built at Southwark and at Bermondsey. Studies are going on at present. We must establish that the demand is there and that it will be possible to use those stations sufficiently to justify the considerable cost involved in building them.
As part of the arrangements for providing station facilities on the proposed railway extension, it is proposed that the station at Westminster should be rebuilt with two ticket halls. The eastern ticket hall would be on the site of the present station, with the western ticket hall being under the junction of Parliament street, Great George street and Bridge street. The subject has been considered by the New Building Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), which the promoters have met and to which they have given evidence on a number of occasions.
Concern has been expressed about the siting of the western ticket hall beneath the road junction adjacent to the Palace of Westminster, which could lead to an unacceptable disruption of the working of Parliament. The construction of the ticket hall would involve raising the road level by 1 m on to a temporary road decking similar to that built at Oxford Circus during the construction of the Victoria line in the 1960s.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not for a moment wish to mislead the House. I am sure that he will acknowledge that that was only one of many issues over which the New Building Sub-Committee expressed concern.

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is right. The Sub-Committee passed comment on that issue. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it was generally in favour of the Bill, subject to its own conditions. It is intended to meet two of the major conditions.

Mr. Orme: I speak as a member of the Sub-Committee. There was fundamental disagreement between the Sub-Committee and London Transport over the siting of the interchange. We had alternative proposals, which our advisers told us were feasible, to transfer that interchange to St. James's Park. That is our recorded view, and we maintain that view.

Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. However, on financial and various other criteria, it was considered that the present proposal was best. I believe that the Services Committee was prepared to accept that on the basis of the recommendations from the available experts.
It has therefore been suggested to the promoters that one possible solution would be to move the western ticket hall to a site beneath Parliament square if the House should wish that. Accordingly, if this alternative site were to be the preferred solution, the promoters would be prepared to move the western ticket hall for the new station. To that end, powers have been included in an


additional provision which would enable the promoters to take and use that part of Parliament square which would be required for that purpose.
By including proposals for an alternative site for the western ticket hall, the promoters believe that they are acting in accordance with the wishes of the Services Committee as set out in paragraph 49 of its third report entitled "New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) and the Jubilee Line Proposals", which is House of Commons Paper 334. If, however, other arrangements were eventually found to be acceptable to the Committee on the Bill, the promoters might not need to seek amendment of the Bill so far as it relates to the new station at Westminster, as such other arrangements as are mentioned in the Select Committee's third report should be capable of implementation under the Bill as deposited.
After construction of the new station, Parliament square would be restored as near as possible to its present condition. Construction of the western ticket hall under the square would, however, affect the small trees growing on the north side of the square and they would need to be removed. The promoters intend to replace the trees after completion of construction work, and to that end they are consulting the arboricultural officer of the City of Westminster. If the site of the western ticket hall were to be built beneath Parliament square, the promoters would also consult the royal botanic gardens at Kew about suitable replacements for the lost trees.
At Waterloo there will be a Jubilee line station and an interchange with existing services.

Mr. Martin Redmond: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to Parliament square. It seems strange that the Minister and London Underground appear to want to accommodate the docklands and the investment in that area, but want to shift additional people into this already congested area. Could the promoters not find additional money to take account of the New Building Sub-Committee's recommendations? The hon. Gentleman did not say how long Parliament square would be disrupted. Can he give us some idea of how long that disruption would last?

Mr. Thorne: Consideration has been given to the matter, and the best possible route is now agreed to be through Westminster to Waterloo. The line cannot adequately serve Waterloo without passing through Westminster. There are great advantages in having a connection to the District and Circle lines and that is the main factor. The original intention was that the line would extend along the north side of the Thames via Charing Cross. However, now that the channel tunnel terminus is to be built at Waterloo, it is important that such a facility should be there. That is one of the main reasons for the change of direction. However, that does not mean that the existing tunnel will be blocked up. It will be left so that, if in future it is desirable to extend in that direction, that will be possible.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)? How many years is Parliament square expected to be turned into a bomb site? Can he give us a firm idea of the calculations and the source of those

calculations and tell us whether they come from London Transport or a firm of contracting engineers? can he enlighten the House about that?

Mr. Thorne: The whole period for the construction of the extension is 53 months—approximately four and a half years. However, only part of that time would entail major works in Parliament square. One would expect that it would be heavily worked for two years, but for the remainder of the period there would certainly be some form of work in the area.

Mr. Cormack: It is quite clear from the evidence that we received that Parliament square would become a building site, or a bomb site as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) described it, for a good four years. That was clear from all the evidence that we received. It is important that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is seeking to get the support of the House for the measure, should not try in so doing to give us a rosy picture of what will happen. There will be major disruption, as Westminster city council has made quite plain, for about four years.

Mr. Thorne: There are two kinds of disruption. One is disturbance to the soil, which will clearly take place within the area. Major steps are being taken to surround the site with appropriate wooden cover so that it will not be too much of an eyesore to those at ground level. Admittedly those who view Parliament square from a height will have a less attractive view. The other disruption must be to traffic. The working is being arranged so that the minimum of disruption is caused to traffic. Certainly during rush hour peak periods we would not wish to have heavy vehicles moving in and out of the site. That will mean that a certain amount of the spoil will have to be stored on the site while it is being extracted until more appropriate times to remove it.
It is clear that there will be disruption; I do not seek to deny that. There is always disruption where there is building work. It is a question whether that disruption is tolerable and acceptable. We, like everyone else, must face the need for some disruption if it brings lasting improvements for the travelling public.

Mr. Ray Powell: We should be more specific when we are talking about the time factor. The House would not welcome being misled. Clause 7(3) states quite specifically:
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Company may, for a period not exceeding six years from the date of the passing of this Act, narrow and stop up".
The Bill is requesting at least six years.

Mr. Thorne: I am of course talking about 53 weeks being the contract period from the time that the work starts. It is not 53 weeks from now. The Bill will have to progress through the House and receive Royal Assent. Contracts will then have to be let, and that will obviously have to happen before any work can start.
These days, contractors have been fairly reliable. I know that there have been some problems in constructing tunnels elsewhere, but there is considerable expertise. I do not think that it is beyond the ability of engineers to make a fairly accurate forecast of the time that the project will take. I am confident that the estimated figure of 53 weeks is not unreasonable.

Mr. Ray Powell: The request in clause 7(3) says


not exceeding six years from the date of the passing of the Act".
Bearing in mind whatever time the House takes and the Committee, if one is appointed, will take, the Bill means six years from the time the Act is passed.

Mr. Thorne: Certainly. Time will be required for contracts to be put out and to be let. I should have thought that that could easily take six months. We are talking about a total of five years. It is only wise for a Bill to allow for any eventuality. Ground conditions are clearly an important factor in tunnelling, and that is one of the great points about the Bill. Subsoil structures between the north of the Thames and the south of the Thames are quite different. It is only because of the extra expertise that has been acquired in recent years that we are able to contemplate tunnelling. That is one reason why the original proposal was to go along the Fleet line on the north side of the Thames. It would be imprudent merely to ask for the bare minimum time that is required in case some snag is encountered. That is the reason for the six-year period.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the extension involves tunnelling and road diversions near important historical buildings and will therefore call for the most careful standards of work. Can he say why completion of the parliamentary offices, which were built in Bridge street, adjacent to the House, and adjacent to the proposed works, and where the same high standard of work was required, was many months overdue? Would not the problem that occurred with those buildings be likely to recur in exactly the same location with the same required standard of work? Are not we talking about possibly scraping through in six years, with a bit of luck?

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman takes a pessimistic view. There is a difference between contracting work above ground and mining work beneath it. Miners are fairly reliable and accurate. The forecast of 53 months is fair. It is sensible to want a little latitude in case there is a problem, but I see nothing unreasonable in what is requested. The times that have been quoted are perfectly fair and reasonable.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Redmond: rose—

Mr. Thorne: I must start to make some progress. I have given way on many occasions. I must get on.

Mr. Redmond: I think that what you mentioned will be slippery Joe. Leaving that matter to one side, I wonder whether you could—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would not ignore the Chair but would make his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Redmond: I wonder whether, Madam Deputy Speaker, the sponsor of the Bill would explain to the House why there is a need for Parliament square to be disrupted. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that, away from the congestion of the city, a place could be set aside where all the dirt and muck from the tunnelling could be disposed of without disrupting an already crowded city. There is no need for Parliament square to be disrupted. If the hon. Gentleman and London Underground representatives were to go to

Yorkshire, they could recruit a team to do the job for them—whichever job is eventually decided—without any disruption of Parliament square. Why must Parliament square be disrupted?

Mr. Thorne: It is required to be disrupted, because, technically, it is believed that it is the best place to remove the spoil. Much of the spoil is to be removed by barge from various places along the route, and I shall refer to them later. That is a technical point, which I am sure could be argued in some detail before the Opposed Private Bill Committee. It would be wrong of me to second-guess the questions that the Committee will ask in its thorough examination of the Bill.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to point out that, of course, no spoil would come out at Parliament square. Tunnelling for the line between Green Park and Waterloo would come from the Jubilee gardens site. No spoil or muck from the tunnel will come up into Parliament square. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Parliament square works relate to the excavation of the ticketing hall.

Miss Kate Hoey: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must respond to an intervention before he allows another intervention.

Mr. Thorne: I accept what my hon Friend says. Obviously, some material will be removed. It depends on what the Opposed Bill Committee decides: whether it is to be located at the intersection of the roads or actually in Parliament square itself, and therefore how much spoil is to be removed.

Miss Hoey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go in to great detail on where the spoil will be. He is saying that it is all very well for the Westminster area—it will not have spoil—but the Jubilee gardens area, which will be affected by the measure, will have spoil.

Mr. Thorne: I must now get on with my speech.
At Waterloo, there will be a Jubilee line station with an interchange with existing services—Northern, Bakerloo, Waterloo and City and Network SouthEast services. A considerable number of petitions from individuals and local interest groups have expressed concern about the proposals in the Bill and the effect that the works will have on people living in the vicinity. London Underground h as met and plans to have further meetings with those concerned to explain the works in detail and the steps that are being taken to mitigate environmental effects. A particular concern in the Waterloo area is the temporary loss of public open space for use as a work site in Jubilee gardens. That work site will be used to construct the main tunnels west of Green park and east of Waterloo station.
Tunnelling spoil will be carried along the tunnel to Jubilee gardens, from where it will be taken by barge along the river. That will require the occupation of part of Jubilee gardens for three to four years. Other construction sites will be necessary at Tenison way and part of the Ball Ring, which will serve the Waterloo station construction works. It will be necessary also to have further major work sites at Ewer street in north Southwark and at Old Jamaica road, east of London Bridge station. Those sites are


essential to enable the construction of the tunnel from Waterloo to London Bridge and beyond to Canada Water in the Surrey docks.
The promoters of the Bill are working closely with all affected borough councils to draw up a detailed code of construction practice that will regulate the construction of the works, including measures to control construction noise, vehicle movements and other matters associated with the construction of a major underground railway.
Two proposed stations south of the river, at Southwark and Bermondsey, have been the subject of press speculation this week about their eventual inclusion in the project. The promoters wish those two stations to be built and are anxious to make the best possible case in terms of transport planning and local benefits so as to meet the Department of Transport's formal approval criteria. The Department has asked for further information, which London Regional Transport is now providing.
Between Canning Town and Stratford, the Jubilee line extension will be constructed alongside the existing service of British Rail, known as the north London line, which runs from Richmond to north Woolwich. It is proposed to construct a station at Canning Town to provide an interchange to the docklands light railway station, presently under construction, and the existing British Rail station. As Canning Town will be a major transport interchange point in the east end, it is proposed to construct a new bus station just to the south of the A13 where that road crosses the north London line.
The construction of the bus station will inevitably result in the acquistion of certain properties in Victoria Dock road. London Underground is in negotiation with the interested parties with a view to purchasing certain properties in advance of Royal Assent. To the north of Canning Town, it will be necessary to acquire property in a limited number of other locations in order to construct the extension. London Underground is in discussions with the landowners concerned.
In opening the debate, I said that there was a choice of route on the docklands section from Canary wharf to Stratford, which could run either via Brunswick or on the north Greenwich peninsula. Representations have been made by the owners of the land on the Greenwich peninsula, which they are to redevelop for housing, that the route across it would provide considerable benefit to persons living in the area. London Underground has studied the propositions and believes that to be the case and that, in addition, the new alignment would provide further high capacity public transport—

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some expenditure has been mentioned and, obviously, the Government are intending to put X amount of money into the project. If the Government are involved, the question of a hybrid Bill comes into the discussion. In connection with that, may I ask whether permission to spend money can be given before the measure has received the approval of the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. That question should be addressed to the hon. Member who is speaking on behalf of the promotors.

Mr. Thorne: The new alignment would also provide further high-capacity public transport river crossings for the whole of that part of London, which is an area notorious for its inadequate cross-river capacity. The Greenwich peninsula is intrinsically difficult to serve by public transport and is poorly served at present. Improved public transport access would substantially enhance the prospect of the area being redeveloped for housing.
In addition, the promotors understand that a large car park is to be constructed near the proposed Jubilee line station on the railway on the Greenwich peninsula. That will enable cars bound for the docklands development area and for central London to be intercepted and thus would help to reduce traffic congestion on the busy inner-London roads in that area and in central London generally.
The change of route would result in the exclusion of one proposed station from the railway, at Brunswick. The proposed site for that station is adjacent to a station that is to be built as part of the Beckton extension of the docklands railway. That area will therefore be served by public rail transport. There will be provision for interchange between the proposed Jubilee line extension and the docklands railway at both Canary wharf and Canning town. It therefore seems to the promoters that there are substantial transport benefits to be achieved by adopting this revised route.
I have stressed the promoters' attempts to meet concerned local people and to analyse their concerns openly and fairly. In contemplating this project, London Underground Ltd. was always sensitive to the fact that such a project in central and inner London could have an impact upon people and on the natural and built environment. On their behalf, an independent consultancy has carried out an environmental impact assessment, and an environmental statement has been produced and sent to all petitioners. London Underground Ltd. has accepted the mitigation measures suggested in that report.
Extensive consultation has taken place with local authorities, statutory bodies, residents and interest groups, and affected occupiers so that their concerns could be established and responded to. This consultation is continuing and will go on up to and beyond the start of construction works.

Mr. Cryer: Is the environmental impact survey available to hon. Members? Have any attempts been made to circulate it to hon. Members? I have not seen it. I understand that copies are available in the sense that some hon. Members have got hold of them, but I also understand that the survey is not in the Vote Office. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that omission should be rectified?

Mr. Thorne: As the survey is detailed, it is more appropriate that it should be dealt with in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. When the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to make further comments, should the need arise. If the hon. Gentleman would like some further information, I shall do my best to ensure that he receives it at that time.
The final topic I wish to touch on is that of the contribution of developers to the funding of the extension. It is a project on a massive scale: the cost of constructing the work in the Bill is estimated to exceed £1,000 million.


From the date of starting construction, it is expected that the project will take some four and a half years to complete.
There is to be a substantial contribution from Olympia and York, the developers of Canary wharf, and a further contribution from British Gas, the owners of the land on the Greenwich peninsula, and from Regalian Properties plc.
The proposed extension to Stratford would provide a major addition—

Mr. Orme: How much approved public expenditure will the Government make available in the first three years? We are entitled to know that.

Mr. Thorne: The right hon. Gentleman must ask the Minister that question. Olympia and York has offered a substantial contribution, which I believe totals £400 million over the period. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will wish to put his own questions later.
The measure would bring widespread benefits to many who live in, work in and visit the capital. The promoters therefore ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading so that they may be allowed to proceed, and put to the Opposed Bill Committee their case for the provisions of the Bill and also of the additional provision.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: First, I thank the Chair for accepting the instruction tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), other hon. Members representing east London constituencies, and myself. As it is unlikely that we shall reach discussion of the instruction—for procedural reasons—I should like to put it on the record by reading it. It states:
After Second Reading of the London Underground Bill, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to the need for regeneration of local communities and local industries in and around the areas of London Dockland and Lower Lea Valley.
Such an instruction should not be necessary for Bills connected with public transport.
Secondly, I thank the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for saying that he had great sympathy with our instruction. I sense that his sympathy comes from being the Member of Parliament for a constituency on the eastern side of London. In addition, through his experience on the Greater London council, he has some understanding of the need for proper strategic planning in London. I wish that I could say the same for his hon. Friends on the Front Bench. The lack of such understanding is the reason why the instruction has been tabled.
Nearly three miles of the line is in Newham. I shall come to details affecting the borough later, and am joined in those views by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). This is a London issue and I shall begin by expressing my personal views, as a London Member as well as an east London Member, about the strategic issues relating to transport in London.
The Bill has aroused mixed feelings in those of us who take an interest in transport in London. Undoubtedly, any investment in the London underground is welcome at the moment. Those who use or who try to use the District line will know what I mean. Many other issues also worry hon.

Members. However, the Bill is not one of our first strategic priorities. Indeed, one might even say that its genesis does not lie in transport strategy at all. It comes from the needs of a developer, to which I shall come in a moment, which have arisen because of the lack of planning on the part of the Government and the London Docklands development corporation. That is incontrovertible. One of the problems with the LDDC is that it does not set out specifically to regenerate communities or local industry. That is one of the reasons why we tabled the instruction.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that several requests from me for a meeting with the Reichman brothers, the directors of Olympia arid York which is building Canary Wharf, have drawn a blank? I have been unable to acquaint them with my anxiety that building the Jubilee line should not add to the uprooting of local industry and the intolerable disturbance that the community is already suffering. Upwards of 9,300 people have lost television reception as Canary Wharf has risen. They could not see the world cup. Apparently the directors of Olympia and York do not feel obliged to help with those problems. Although we welcome an addition to public transport, I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, as the line will not be built in an empty space, but a community lives there, its interest and well-being must be taken into account.

Mr. Spearing: That is the authentic voice not only of Tower Hamlets but of the Isle of Dogs, which is where one of the stations will be. It had local industry. Metropolitan Foods in my constituency has been told by the LDDC that its undoubted losses cannot be covered by public funds. We also hear that the LDDC's budget for this year will not be published until September. If any local authority n London did not publish its budget for this year until September, it would face a court case, prison or even worse. We believe that that is not good enough.
An extraordinary statistic sums up the imbalance in London planning. When the late Lord Cross, who chaired the Select Committee in another place which dealt with the establishment of the LDDC, commended the LDDC to the House, he said that he wanted mostly houses with gardens in London and hoped that there would be a time when conditions were such that they could be built. That was on 1 July 1981. He said that the houses should be for rent.
The figures produced by the docklands consultative committee of London boroughs a fortnight ago show that 2,000–odd dwellings for rent have been built. Another statistic shows that £2,000 million has been invested in transport infrastructure or earmarked for it. That includes the amount for the Jubilee line. If those figures are correct, an extraordinary £1 million is spent for every dwelling for rent built so far in the docklands area. One can understand the anxiety in east London about ever more transport infrastructure, welcome though it is in some ways because, we hope, it will be publicly owned.
Even the Government admit that the line is not the priority. We are awaiting the result of the so-called central London rail study. There is a choice between crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line. Although the line proposed in the Bill goes through central London from Green Park to London bridge, it is part of the so-called east London rail


study. We believe that that study was produced as a result of the Government's non-planning and the need to bail out Canary wharf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) told us that the people who are spending £400 million on the railway and on producing such an enormous building in her constituency have not met the current proprietors of Canary wharf. They picked up the tab from the original promoters, who found that even with Swiss finance and First Boston they could not find the money. They were induced to take up another option. I do not know what additional letters of comfort or suggestions the proprietors received from the LDDC. We believe that it was a close-run thing.
The company has discovered that the docklands light railway is not sufficient for its development needs, so it has come along to the Government and said, "Please give us a tube. We will give you £400 million towards it." Perhaps the Minister will confirm that £100 million of that is cash down and £300 million will be paid when the line is built. At 1989 prices, the Government are contributing an estimated £700 million in addition. I should correct that statement. It is not the Government but either the farepayers or taxpayers of London who will pay. I presume that there will be some input from London Transport. If not, the money will come from the Government.
I hope that the Minister can clear up a problem. I recall an answer that I was given to a question that I asked some time ago about the origin of the money for the line. Normally one would expect that it would be part of the infrastructure vote for London of the Department of Transport. I understand that the money will not come from that source and that the arrangements have been changed. I have heard stories about a contingency fund. Perhaps the Minister can clear up that matter now or in Committee.
It has already been said that civil engineering contracts have a habit of being somewhat more expensive than originally expected. Everyone knows that the ground conditions in south London are different from those of north London. The line crosses under the Thames in three places. Irrespective of the method of funding and its ins and outs, who will stand the tab if the estimates are exceeded? Will it be, pro rata, the developers and the Government, or will the entire extra cost be paid with public money?
I have said enough about the genesis of the railway. Most of us in east London believe that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), formerly Secretary of State for the Environment and now chairman of the Conservative party, could have called a public inquiry on the development at Canary wharf but did not do so. That is positive proof that the Conservative party does not care about proper strategic planning for London. A development where 50,000 people may work is of enormous strategic importance. Having agreed it, this controversial Bill has been brought before the House.
At the beginning of the debate a good deal was said about Parliament square. I shall not dwell on that for long, but I wish to suggest a solution. When I saw the plans about six months ago I said to London Transport, "Why Westminster? Lots of people want to go to Charing Cross.

It is a main line British Rail station with many interchanges. Why not take it on from there and go to Waterloo via Temple?" Of course there must be an interchange with the District and Circle lines—no one would disagree with that—but it could be at St. James's Park, as the Services Committee suggested. What about Temple? London Transport said, "We shall have to think about that. Oh, the curve is too sharp."
I looked at the maps in the Private Bill Office and found that the curve underneath Pall Mall is designed for 300 m. I got out a schoolboy compass and did some work. I think that it might be possible for the line to continue from Charing Cross, bend towards Temple and bend again somewhere under Waterloo. If that were possible—this is a Committee point—it might solve a good many of the problems.
The disadvantage for some hon. Members might be that they could not get on the train at Parliament square. I could not get on it to go to my constituency. Hon. Members would have to walk all the way to Trafalgar square—800 yd. That may seem a long way, but it is about the same distance as from the Members' Entrance to the bridge across the lake in St. James's Park. That brings the objection on distance into perspective.
I hope that that matter will be considered in Committee. A line of the alignment which I have described—perhaps the track will have to be longer or the curve greater to slow down the trains—would probably cost much less than extensive works in Parliament square. Such development would also provide a much valued connection direct to Charing Cross.
My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East and for Newham, North-West have similar thoughts to mine about how the proposed development will affect Newham. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West is particularly interested as he shares the projected route with me. The London borough of Newham and many businesses in the area have submitted petitions and the views that I intend to express are those of the borough and of my hon. Friends—except when I express a particular personal view.
I agree with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about disabled access. It would not be possible easily to redesign the Jubilee line to accommodate disabled persons. However, London Transport has said that any completely new line in London will be designed to accommodate them. Whatever new tunnels are built, it would be useful if they were large enough to enable disabled persons to use the tubes. Disabled people of Newham and West Ham would like to visit the west end via the Jubilee line and, providing safety restrictions are upheld, I do not see any reason why the tunnels to be constructed should not accommodate tubes large enough for such people. I hope that the Committee will consider that.
With the Jubilee line entering the London borough of Newham from the Greenwich peninsula, there is the hope that construction will provide possible future branch lines—to the north Woolwich area. The diagrams show that a step-plate junction is planned and I hope that the Committee is assured that such a junction will be built. Building a junction underground after the trains are running is not only difficult, but may even be impossible.
A step-plate junction would provide two route options. First, a branch could be constructed over the existing north London line, to which the hon. Member for Ilford,


South referred, as far as north Woolwich and perhaps beyond. Good planning might take that line on to Woolwich Arsenal. Secondly, a branch could be constructed towards Custom House on the north side of the royal docks and onwards to Barking. I agree with the London borough of Newham that those options should be part of the proposed route, because that would provide good value for money as construction would be over existing track.
Those routes could be developed either by inter-running the existing north London link—I know that the transport inspectors have some doubt about that, but there is inter-running elsewhere and it should be considered—or along parallel lines. I believe that there should be facilities for freight to run at night even if inter-running is available on both lines. What will happen in the royal docks area is a matter of speculation, so we should keep our options open.
The rail corridor from Canning Town to Stratford is already wide with four tracks. It is proposed that that corridor be dedicated to the Jubilee line. In future I hope that there will be room for a possible channel tunnel link.
The London borough of Newham and the hon. Members who represent it are concerned about the amount of land that is included within the compulsory purchase area. We do not understand the extensive areas so designated and we do not understand why arrangements are not made for works to be done on a pro tern basis. We do not understand why everything should be compulsorily acquired, especially in respect of the land at West Ham.
At Canning Town there are also a number of controversial purchases of existing firms that employ local people. Those local industries have survived and they want to expand in the area. Whether the instruction is passed, I hope that the Committee will make it clear to the promoters that those firms and their employees must not be disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Ilford, South and the promotors claim that the local people will be advantaged as a result of the new bus station and railways. Even if that is so, we must still see to it that nobody who is displaced is disadvantaged in any way. Unfortunately, the LDDC has not done that, but the Bill must ensure it. I am sure that the petitioners and the borough will consider that matter closely in Committee.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: What will happen at the Canning Town interchange is especially important, because when the station and bus interchange are built, the value of the surrounding land will go up considerably. If London Underground has bought more land than it needs through compulsory purchase, it will be the one to benefit from that increase in value. The management of London Underground should be leaning over backwards to ensure that the people of the area represented by the hon. Gentleman do not believe that too much land is being compulsorily purchased. They should be given the information to ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining my point. The amount of land to be purchased at Canning Town may not be that great, but the demands of the local industries are important. One firm has a gantry

crane and one does not put such cranes up afresh for tuppence. It is important to take into account such displacements.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) has even greater relevance in West Ham. At Canning Town there will be only three underground railways: the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line and the north London line, unless it is displaced as the borough suggests. At West Ham there will be four railway lines, presuming the Bill gets through. We shall have the existing north London link, the Jubilee line, the District line, when it is running, and in addition, British Rail has sensibly said that some of the trains on the Tilbury line will stop there. Four electrified railways will cross one another at right angles, so the surrounding land will be extremely valuable.
The land to the north-west of West Ham station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West forms part of the lower Lea valley area to which the instruction refers. That area is in the process of being changed, which requires careful planning. Good strategic planning and borough planning should ensure that the plans meet the needs of the people of Newham, not the needs of developers coming in on the back of a new railway line.
As is well known, Newham, statistically, is the second most deprived borough in the country, but that is not so as it is rich in human talent. Morally, the land belongs to the people of the area and it should be developed for their benefit. The plans include a possible depot for the railway just south of Stratford. The railway must have a depot, of course, but perhaps it could be built further north or covered over so that the space above could be used for something else. Those important points must be decided by the Committee.
To the north of the land affected in the lower Lea valley is Stratford—a junction already known because of the channel tunnel controversy. Only this week a Committee of the House referred to its inability to evaluate the potential of Stratford as a future channel tunnel international station not terminal. The Jubilee line is clue to terminate there. It would provide a fast service if it were constructed from Waterloo and London Bridge straight to Stratford.
I hope that there can be some safeguard there—perhaps a three-decker arrangement: the Jubilee line, the north London line, roads and other railways north to south on the lower level, with plenty of space for development and a connection to crossrail that we hope is coming in a few weeks' time. That will probably be announced after we go away for the summer recess if the Government run to form. I hope that it will be announced before the recess. For the east-west, on the next level, perhaps there could be a channel link using the Ove Arup scheme or whichever route is chosen. There could be a third deck on top of that for passenger circulation and motor traffic to give an excellent and well-designed interchange.
There is the land available and it makes strategic sense for the line to go there. There is plenty of land further north, so perhaps the railway could be built there in the Lea valley area. It could join up with other tube railways further north. However, I shall not pursue that argument because it is a wider strategic issue.
I have spoken enough to show that the Bill has had a mixed reception. It is not the first priority for strategic transport investment in London, which must he the


crossrail. London Transport, the Bill's promoters, has not looked as carefully as it might at some of the alternative alignments in the west end, particularly those that would avoid the complications of using Parliament square. Above all, unfortunately, the genesis of the railway has been based not on the regeneration of communities or industries, but on the needs of developers who may have been under some misapprehension that transport was to be provided when in fact permission had not been given.
The Bill has had a mixed reception from those of us in east London. If the line is constructed, we shall look carefully at the detailed planning, because it should serve the people of east London.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak early in the debate. I wish to place on record the appreciation of the members of the New Building Sub-Committee for the complimentary comments by the Leader of the House as reported in Hansard, 10 July, column 281. To save time, I shall not attempt to repeat many of the issues raised during that short debate, but I wish to record my sincere appreciation of the members of the New Building Sub-Committee who conscientiously attended weekly meetings to delve into the depths of the problems that the Bill will present to the House.
The Committee fully appreciates the dauntless hours of work which the Clerk, Mr. Robin James, devoted so meticulously to ensuring that the Committee was kept fully conversant and informed of all the details necessary to enable members to discuss and decide issues of this complex and controversial Bill, especially where it affected hon. Members and their accommodation.
The Minister for Public Transport intervened earlier and referred to the spoil that would be brought up in Parliament square. If spoil is not to be brought up in Parliament square, why was the New Building Sub-Committee told that numerous lorries would be fed into the already congested traffic around the square on an hourly basis once the site was prepared and soil excavation taking place? If spoil is brought up in a building site, particularly in the centre of London right outside the precincts of the House, it will not only be unsightly, but will result in a large amount of muck being brought from the site by lorries onto a congested road. The Minister should address that important issue.
I spoke briefly on Tuesday to oppose the business motion because I thought that three hours was far too short a period for us to discuss a Bill with such serious implications. Opposition Members and, I am sure, members of the New Building Sub-Committee would declare their support for more and better facilities in London. However, I should like to address the Bill's effects on Parliament and Parliament buildings.

Mr. Cryer: I have looked through the report of the Committee of which my hon. Friend is the Chairman. Was there any explanation from the promoter about guaranteeing the position of the Sessional Orders? My hon. Friend mentioned extra lorries, spoil and congestion in Parliament square. Clearly, Sessional Orders must be maintained. I wonder whether the promoters went out of their way to explain to the committee what provision they

planned to make to ensure that Sessional Orders would be applied throughout the period of possibly six years during which the works will disrupt Parliament square?

Mr. Powell: That is an important point. I recall that my hon. Friend raised the issue of Sessional Orders during our debate on the Queen's Speech. He took a spot that I was hoping to take, because it was the first time that the television cameras had been used in the House. It is the Serjeant at Arms's responsibility for ensuring that access to and from the precincts of the House is not contravened by any order. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving him a full reply now, but I want to refer to Sessional Orders and remind hon. Members that we should ensure that we have right of access to and from the House, later in my speech.

Mr. Don Dixon: My hon. Friend mentioned a three-hour debate. There is no suggestion that this Second Reading debate should be confined to three hours. This is the first part of the Bill's Second Reading. I assume that, if it had been an official Government Bill instead of an unofficial Government Bill, we would have demanded more than a day to debate the important issues relating to it.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is one of the members of the New Building Sub-Committee and devoted an hour or even two hours every week for the purpose of discussing this complicated Bill and how it affects the House. I am glad that he raised this point because three hours, or even a day, spent on debate is not enough when we consider that the Sub-Committee has taken months of deliberation. It has placed pressure on, and had meetings with, the Minister of Transport and others to ensure that hon. Members have a full and comprehensive knowledge of what is proposed and how it affects the House.

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I deliberately call him that in this context. Does he recall that when the Sub-Committee first began its deliberations, its members had no prior warning of what was going to hit them. So great was the consternation and disgust that one member a Government Whip—walked out in disgust.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Within a matter of days of that happening, the Chairman said that the opinion expressed by the throwing down of papers and walking out was entirely different from the opinion held a week or two later, after we had met the Minister to discuss the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: It appears that the Government Whip was so disgusted that he threw down his papers and walked from the Committee. We can well imagine the cascade of papers that were thrown from Government offices and the number of people who walked out after reading in The Spectator the interview of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Powell: If I were to travel down that road, you would soon bring me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can well imagine what would happen if people took such action.

Mr. Redmond: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us about the disruption that is likely to be caused in Parliament square. The sponsor of the Bill and the


Minister failed to do that. I am still not convinced about the need to have a bob-hole in Parliament square. When a pit is sunk, all the waste travels up the shaft and the coal that is extracted travels along the tunnel and up the shaft. The waste outlet could be away from Parliament square. I can see no need for a bob-hole. Perhaps my hon. Friend or the Minister could deal with that.

Mr. Powell: The Committee deliberated on that, and we employed consultants to look for alternative sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) used to be a miner, and I am the son of a miner. If a mine were being sunk in Wales or in my hon. Friend's constituency, spoil could be brought up well away from the shaft. My hon. Friend spoke about a bob-hole. Great disruption will be caused when a ramp is placed around the roadway.
I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will bear in mind what I and other hon. Members have said before you decide on the closure. If the Bill becomes law, it will affect everyone who works in the House. It will turn Parliament square into a building site for at least five years. Six years is the period mentioned in the Bill. It will also involve rebuilding Westminster station and will have serious implications for Parliament's new building project. That means that the only chance for hon. Members to acquire the sort of office accommodation that is taken for granted in foreign legislatures will be lost.
Hon. Members need new accommodation. When we met the Secretary of State for Transport and members of London Underground, we noted their spacious offices. Would they like to work in some of the offices in which hon. Members have to work? Some of us represent 60,000 or 70,000 constituents and have to work in an office that is like a little box, which we have to share with a secretary and sometimes a research assistant. About 40 hon. Members sometimes gather in the Cloisters of the House, where there is not much room for anything more than spare library books.
If the public were fully aware of the accommodation available to Members, they would share the anxiety felt by the New Building Sub-Committee about the proposals, which could delay the completion of phase 2 of the new building for five or six years. Many Members of my age will not be here in five or six years to enjoy such offices. If the Bill had not been presented, if Parliament square had not been selected for use as a building site, and if there had not been changes in the proposals for Westminster station, phase 2 would be well on the way to completion.

Mr. Dixon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the New Building Sub-Committee was opposed to the new Jubilee line because of its connections with the District and Central lines? London Underground did not accept the alternative put forward by the New Building Sub-Committee, that the connection of the Jubilee and District and Central lines should be at St. James's station. Does my hon. Friend agree that that was because London Underground has its headquarters at St. James's and did not want to experience the disruption that it is prepared to inflict on hon. Members?

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is right. That was discussed in Committee.
Between November and last May, the Committee carried out an inquiry into the effect of the Bill's proposals on the work of Parliament.

Mr. Cryer: I gleaned from the evidence provided by the Committee that, although London Underground claimed that it had looked at alternatives, no serious calculations had been made about the engineering difficulties, the potential of the Committee's suggestion or the cost of any alternative to having the interchange in Parliament square.

Mr Powell: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, that is not entirely true. The Committee appointed two experts—Sir Alan Muir Wood and Mr. Reginald Jenkins—to devise two alternative routes for the line through St. James's Park station.

Mr. Cryer: May I put the record straight? I was not saying that the Committee did not investigate; it did. My point was that London Underground—which is the Bill's promoter, and on which the main burden was placed to examine all the alternatives and give evidence to the House—plumped for a big hole in Parliament square without having done any homework on the alternatives. Would that be correct?

Mr. Powell: That is correct. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) referred to a Conservative Member throwing down his papers the night that the proposals were made to the Committee because he thought that Parliament square—indeed, Westminster and Parliament itself—should not have been involved, and that there should have been an alternative. That is the reason why he left the Committee in disgust. At that meeting, the Committee expressed the opinion that London Underground should at least have informed its members. Hon. Members were not aware of the proposals, although we had heard rumours about them. I believe that London Underground presented the proposals in the hope that they would go through with a nod and a wink—and of course, without the New Building Sub-Committee. It had not given a thought to the possibility that the New Building Sub-Committee and the proposed phase 2 should be considered.

Mr Redmond: It is important that this point be cleared up. When the Bill's sponsor was giving his reasons why the Bill should be given a Second Reading, he told me that the alternative proposed by the New Building Sub-Committee was far too expensive. If that was the case, one would assume that the costings had been calculated. If my hon. Friend is saying that no serious estimates were made, that is very disturbing.

Mr. Powell: When the proposals were presented to the New Building Sub-Committee and the specialists whom it appointed for advice, our specialists offered us the alternatives, which we presented to London Underground, which then costed them. It was not aware of—indeed, had not considered—alternative proposals until our consultants had given their advice. One suggestion will affect the environment, and the other will cost more money; I assume that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is referring to. The proposals were based primarily on the alternative sites suggested by the New Building Sub-Committee.
The Committee published a detailed report, which is available from the Vote Office. I urge any hon. Members who have not already done so to acquire a copy and to read at least the summary of its conclusions. The report is 99 pages long. I would not expect hon. Members to go through all the graphic details, but if they read the


summary of conclusions I am sure it will give them an idea of what the New Building Sub-Committee had proposed. I will not try to summarise the report, but I shall pick out a few key points. The House should have been given at least a day to consider a Bill of this magnitude.
In expressing its apprehension about the Bill, the Sub-Committee did not adopt a "not in my back yard" approach, and was careful not to express a view on the merits of the Jubilee line proposals. The Committee will support any sensible attempt to improve London's chronic transport problems, but surely it is right for proposals to be scrutinised to ensure that they show proper respect for the rights of those affected by them.
Individuals and companies affected by a private Bill are able to petition Parliament. That gives them the right to appear before the Committee considering the Bill to argue their case against it. But the House cannot petition itself, so we thought that the best way to safeguard the interests of the House was to use our powers as a Select Committee to conduct an inquiry and produce a report. Our report is not special pleading for Members of Parliament; it is a responsible attempt to ensure that hastily drafted proposals from London Underground do not result in Members of Parliament and the constituents who visit them suffering intolerable conditions for years.
The report concludes that the Bill should proceed at least to its Committee stage, but subject to certain conditions. It is no secret that members of the Sub-Committee were reluctant to give even a qualified approval to the Bill. We remain worried about the noise and inconvenience, the dust and vibration that we may have to suffer in the immediate vicinity of this building for five or more years. We are also worried about the implications of doubling the number of passengers leaving and entering Westminster station in an area which is already very congested, particularly at the height of the tourist season.
London Underground has told us that the new building project will not be delayed as a result of its construction work. I wish that I could be sure that it is right, but I am sceptical. The buildings which make up phase 2 of our project surround the underground station, and they all come within the limits of deviation contained in the Bill. Therefore, the Bill will give London Underground the power to demolish or alter those buildings as it likes in the construction of the station immediately below them.
If the proposals go ahead, I hope that London Underground's architects and the Property Services Agency's architects will be able to dovetail their proposals so that the two schemes can proceed in tandem. However, one would have to be very optimistic to assume that such an enormously complicated exercise would go smoothly.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because there could never be sufficient money to replace any of the buildings in this vicinity. Has London Underground given any details of the sort of insurance cover that would be available in the event of an accident? It is obvious that London Underground could not carry the sort of costs that might be occurred if, say, Westminster abbey or the Norman Shaw building, of which we have such great expectations, were damaged. What sort of premiums would be required to safeguard such buildings?

Mr. Powell: London Underground has not offered much up front on insurance cover for any buildings that might be damaged. It will not even say whether it is prepared to fund a raft over Westminster station. Therefore, I cannot tell my hon. Friend whether it will be in a position to pay compensation or guarantee to replace any buildings or parts of buildings that might be demolished.
There is no way in which London Underground can guarantee that its scheme will not delay the new parliamentary building. That might be delayed for several years. There is a strong likelihood that there will be delays. Quite apart from the problems that we all know beset the building industry and which we have recently experienced in respect of phase 1 of the new parliamentary building, there is the question of how long the Bill will take to obtain Royal Assent, if it ever does.
London Underground has planned on the assumption that the Bill will be on the statute book in mid-May 1991. The Bill will have to pass through both Houses and both Committee stages within 12 months. Anyone who has followed the progress of recent controversial private Bills, such as the King's Cross Railways Bill, will know that that is a completely unrealistic timetable. If hon. Members ask my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) about details of the way in which private Bills can be delayed, I am sure that he could go into graphic detail.
We are concerned about London Underground's assumption that Royal Assent could be given by mid-May 1991. Until the Bill is passed and we are aware of what London Underground is promising, very little, if anything, can be done by the New Building Sub-Committee to progress our plans for the development of phase 2. That is why the Committee objected so realistically to the proposals.

Mr. Redmond: It is not true that we seek to delay private Bills. Due to the system that operates within this place—the Government's involvement and the practice of slipping private Bills through to avoid public inquiries—it is right and proper that controversial Bills should be adequately discussed in Committee and on the Floor of the House, in an attempt to make people aware of what is transpiring. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that such a controversial Bill, which will affect so many people in London, but do virtually nothing to resolve London's transport problems, deserves the maximum debating time and publicity to ensure that all people, whether they live along the line or on the other side of the river, are aware of what will take place. Money has been squandered; it is not being put to the best possible use.

Mr. Powell: I hope that my hon. and close Friend will not think for a minute that I was criticising him and his colleagues, who objected so strongly and realistically to some of the proposed private Bills presented in recent months. I am glad that he is here to make his observations on this controversial private Bill. The House would do well to consider some of the alternatives to the present private Bill system.
For all the reasons given by the Committee that I have outlined, the Bill is potentially bad news for the House and for those hon. Members who work here. Therefore the Committee thought that it was our duty to our colleagues to at least consider the possibility of building the Jubilee


line interchange somewhere other than Westminster—I am getting to the point that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to.
London Underground assured the Committee that the interchange had to be at Westminster for engineering reasons. We rejected that, and we were proved right. We engaged the services of two experienced engineers, who devised two alternative routes for the line through St. James's Park Station. The fact that London Underground's headquarters is above St. James's Park station—as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) mentioned—may not be unrelated to its unwillingness to contemplate siting the interchange there.
In due course, London Underground conceded that the two alternative routes were feasible in engineering terms. Unfortunately, each had a disadvantage of cost or inconvenience, and the Committee eventually had to accept that Westminster was marginally the better location from a strictly operational point of view. We then had to decide how the new building project and the interests of Parliament could be safeguarded.
We decided that, if the Bill is to proceed and if the interchange is to be built at Westminster, because of the benefits for transport policy, London Underground should undertake to meet three important conditions. It has done so in respect of two, and we are grateful for that. One is to implement a particular design scheme for Westminster station that will be reconcilable with plans for the parliamentary building. The details are set out in the report. The other is to implement all the recommendations relating to the Westminster area in the independent assessment of environmental impact commissioned by the promoters.
The third condition, which we feel is crucial, is that London Underground should bear the full cost of building a concrete raft across the site, which would be enormously important in physically separating the London Underground works below the raft from the parliamentary works above. In theory, it will permit each set of works to proceed separately, and allow for accommodation of superior quality to be erected above the railway.
London Underground has offered to pay for rafting over an area approximating to that of the existing ticket hall, at an estimated cost of £1.5 to £2 million—but not for the rafting required over the rest of the site, the cost of which is estimated by London Underground to be a further £6 million to £7 million. That is not a satisfactory response to our request.
The Services Committee, under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House, concluded:
it would be little short of disastrous, from the point of view of the House's interests, if the Jubilee Line proposals were to proceed without satisfactory assurances from London Underground that funds will be forthcoming to enable a complete raft to be built.
That is strong language, but it is entirely justified.
The Committee added that such an undertaking
would be some recompense to the House for the disruption and delays which will almost certainly be attendant upon the London Underground proposals.
I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will be able to give the House the undertaking that the Services Committee considers essential. If by any chance London Underground is still unwilling to do so, and if the Bill receives its Second Reading, I trust that it will be made a

requirement in Committee that the promoter gives that undertaking as a condition of the Bill proceeding any further.
Another major issue of concern is London Underground's proposal to build a new west ticket hall. In its original form, it would involve erecting a 3 ft high metal ramp across the junction of Bridge street with Parliament square. The Services Committee regards that scheme as completely unacceptable. It would be an eyesore and likely to slow traffic, thus contributing to congestion. It might also contravene the Sessional Orders of the House. which require that passage through the streets leading to the House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members of Parliament to and from the House.
Under the original proposal, the raft would have ended immediately beside the palace gates. I understand that those responsible for arranging ceremonial occasions in Parliament square involving the Brigade of Guards and the Household Cavalry are also unhappy at that proposal. The Services Committee suggested two alternatives. One is to build the whole of the new ticket hall beneath Parliament square itself, thus removing the need for excavations. The other option would be to use a technique called flush decking, which would not impede traffic to the same extent. We do not express a preference between those options, but are content for an Opposed Bill Committee to decide between them.

Mr. Cryer: What my hon. Friend is saying answers a question that I asked some time ago. It appears that London Underground provided no assurances about any potential breaches of the Sessional Orders. As my hon. Friend knows, I take a great interest in the Sessional Orders—at times, more than most. It is clear that London Underground does not appreciate their significance and importance. Has London Underground given an assurance that all future designs and considerations in its proposals will take into account Sessional Orders? It seems to me that my hon. Friend's Committee has been making all those requests but has received very little response from London Underground.

Mr. Powell: There has been no response from London Underground on whether it will accept the alternative that has been suggested by the Committee on the option called flush decking, which we understand would be quite an innovation in this country, although it has been employed successfully in other countries. To my knowledge London Underground has given no such undertaking.
As for the Sessional Orders, particularly the one in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the New Building Sub-Committee were interested, the Serjeant at Arms is on that Committee and was well aware of the problems. As it is his responsibility to ensure that Sessional Orders are carried out, I take it that he has taken due cognisance of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has outlined some of the difficulties that the development will cause in Westminster and in Parliament square. Does he agree that the Committee of which I am a member and of which he is the distinguished Chairman was told by its technical advisers that it was not necessary to have the interchange at


Parliament square—that it would be feasible for it to be moved to St. James's park—but that London Underground did not accept that proposal?

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend is quite right. I am glad that he has emphasised that point. There is still time before we conclude the debate tonight for assurances to be given by the Minister or the promoter of the Bill that they will at least consider yet again the alternatives. If the alternative proposals were accepted and the building site was situated at St. James's park, it would be possible to avoid the problems that would beset the House in future because of the proposed development in Parliament square.
The rest of the report concerns our architects' preliminary proposals for phase 2 of the new parliamentary building. I hope that hon. Members will read that part of the report, but as it does not relate directly to the Bill I shall not deal with it in detail now.
I should like to refer to the Bill itself. We received the proposals and outline of the Bill only today. They refer to the fact that there were 95 petitions against the Bill. That is quite a number of petitioners. I shall not go into depth and detail about the people who petitioned against the Bill. I shall say only that Westminster city council was appalled at the proposals. Some of the members of Westminster city council with whom we discussed the matter said that they would be petitioning strongly against it.
I know that several of my hon. Friends would like to participate in the debate, and I do not want to go on indefinitely, but if the Bill is given a Second Reading, the Opposed Private Bill Committee will carry a burden of responsibility heavier than that usually carried by such Committees. I hope that it will perform its duty wisely and fairly and take full account of the Services Committee's reports. I hope that, when hon. Members express an opinion on the Bill, they will at least have referred to my Committee's report. It has studied the Bill at length and in detail, and I hope that hon. Members will benefit from it.

Mr. Freeman: rose—

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it would be right for more hon. Members to have an opportunity to participate in this important debate before the Minister speaks. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and I had the honour of serving on the Committee. We gave hours of our time to it, because sometimes it met two or three times a week over a six-month period. It would be better if hon. Members had the chance to speak before the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is for the Minister to decide when the speak, but on private Bills it is quite normal or a Minister to give the Government's view at a fairly early stage.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you can see, several hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, including at least one member of the Committee that considered the Bill extensively. As there is only an hour left of the allotted time, I hope that you will bear that in mind should a closure motion, although it would be terribly mistaken, be moved. I hope that such a motion would be rejected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman said, time is getting short, and it would be far better if we got on with the debate.

Mr. Freeman: It might be for the convenience of the House, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I deferred my remarks until other hon. Members have had a chance to speak.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am sure that, on this non-party issue, I speak for all hon. Members when I say that I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's gesture, which was entirely typical of his courteous approach to parliamentary matters.
I had the honour of serving on the New Building Sub-Committee, which was chaired with much distinction by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). His comments may give hon. Members who do not have the privilege, or chore, depending on how they look at it, of serving on such Committees some idea of the amount of work that they do on behalf of the House. Members of those Committees must give up much of their time. None of us minds that, but I hope that nobody will think that in discussing the Bill we are being over-parochial.
The New Building Sub-Committee, which is part of the Service Committee, is given a duty by the House of Commons to consider, without fear or favour and in a bipartisan, non-party spirit, issues affecting the House of Commons and the well-being of its Members. It is not being narrow or insular for us to have concentrated in our report on the impact of the Bill on the Palace of Westminster. In concentrating on that impact, we were seeking—I believe this to be true of all members of the Committee, regardless of party affiliation—to ensure that Members can serve their constituents as well as possible. It is difficult for hon. Members to serve their constituents as well as they might in the conditions that many of them have to tolerate now. It will be well into the 1990s, approaching the turn of the century, before every hon. Member has a room of his or her own—basic minimum facilities which legislatures throughout the world take for granted.
I do not entirely approve of our procedures here; we waste a great deal of time. However, it should be said that this Parliament sits for many more weeks and for longer hours than virtually any other Parliament. It is important, therefore, with the additional responsibility that we have thrust on us as constituency welfare officers, that hon. Members should have an opportunity to do their work not in great comfort, but with a degree of privacy that our constituents have the right to expect.
It was with that basic thought in mind that we sat down together to study this proposal. It was one day last autumn—

Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although he has outlined the position of our own Parliament, it was not special pleading by Members of Parliament? We shall not necessarily be disrupted, but 30,000 more people will arrive in Parliament square each day if the interchange is built. We are talking about 9 million or 10 million people a year in the centre of the capital. We are talking not only about the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but about Westminster abbey, about St. Thomas's, about the Methodist church,


about the Queen Elizabeth centre and about Whitehall, which are all within the area that will be disrupted to an extent that I believe hon. Members have not yet realised.

Mr. Cormack: That was one of the points that exercised us. In the cross-questioning, it became apparent that the point had not similarly exercised some of the planners at London Underground. This is not just Parliament's backyard. Parliament is not only the people's supreme palace—and we are here to serve the people—but the focal point of the kingdom. People come here not only from all over the country, but from all over the world. Many people in the Commonwealth—I know it is no longer called the British Commonwealth—still look to Parliament square as the focus of many of their aspirations; it has a special meaning for them.
Before the helpful intervention of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), with which I very much agree, I was saying that we were suddenly taken aback one day last autumn.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman should not apologise for concentrating on the impact on Parliament with which he is especially concerned. Parliament is an important building, it has an important function and it is the centre of people's attention. Like me, the hon. Gentleman has been present for most of the debate, and it clear that the disruption that is focused on our immediate environment will extend along virtually all this line. The objections to the line in Westminster are echoed by the complaints about the disruption to ordinary people's lives, which are brought to the House again and again by hon. Members whose constituents are affected.

Mr. Cormack: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am concentrating my remarks on Westminster because of my position on the Select Committee, but I accept what he says.
One day last autumn, we were suddenly taken aback when the proposals were unveiled to us. The Committee was deeply angered and shocked. The reaction of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has already been described. It became apparent that London Underground had not thought through the impact of its proposals or taken into account Parliament and our national responsibilities. I am bound to say that subsequently we had a number of much more sensible and fruitful meetings with London Underground. Like the hon. Member for Ogmore, the Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee, I am grateful for two of the undertakings that have been given.
Taking up a point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), from the outset none of us took a narrow view. It is so tremendously apparent to anyone who lives in London for any part of the week that there is a need to improve public transport in London. None of us could possibly deny the importance of the underground in the context of London's transport needs.
There may be many views about Canary Wharf. I felt that the Secretary of State at the time should have called that project in, and I said so at the time. However, I had an opportunity to take the all-party arts and heritage group on a visit to Canary Wharf recently. It was a good group with hon. Members from both sides of the House and from the other place. We were impressed by the quality of the construction and the thought that was going

into that development. It is not one that I would have wished for, but it is happening and I pay a genuine compliment to those responsible for it.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that, with 50,000 people working daily at Canary Wharf, there must be better transport links. I do not deny the need for this particular rail link. However, I question the manner in which it has been brought about and whether the interchange which will affect us most of all is sensibly situated.
We must look very carefully at the effect on the area of four and a half, five or six years' disruption. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) paid enough attention to that point. He seemed to dismiss it rather too cavalierly. I am sure that that was not his intention because, after all, he is a Member of Parliament and he will suffer like the rest of us. When we cross-examined the people who gave evidence from Westminster city council, it was apparent that those extremely experienced gentlemen were deeply disturbed about what would happen in Parliament square hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, for a minimum of four and for a maximum of six years.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, South said, those of us on the New Building Sub-Committee know better than most what slippage means. We have incurred a good deal of wrath—undeservedly, I believe—from our colleagues because phase 1 of the new building, which should have been ready for occupation this autumn, will not be ready for occupation by hon. Members until a year after that. We heard the good news the other day that the contractors hope to complete their handing over by Christmas or eairly next year. It remains to be seen whether they can keep to that timetable. If they can, we shall be surprised as well as grateful. However, it will be after the next summer recess before hon. Members can enjoy the new amenities and conveniences.
We more than most understand what slippage is all about. We have to face the possibility of six years' disruption during which time Parliament square would be a major building site. Hour after hour, lorries, laden with I do not know what, would be slipping into the traffic. That caused our witnesses from Westminster city council great concern.

Mr. Orme: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will recall that a few weeks ago traffic was reduced to one lane along the Embankment because of resurfacing. I travel that way from the Barbican, and on two or three occasions I was stuck in a traffic jam which lasted for up to 15 or 20 minutes. Virtually everything had stopped around Parliament square. That traffic must pass through Parliament square because there is no other route. It must cross the Thames, and it must go round the square as it heads north, some of it into the country. What will be the effect of a minimum of eight lorry movements an hour in and out of a building site in addition to the congestion that already exists?

Mr. Cormack: I tremble to think about that. Like the hon. Gentleman, I come in that way every morning from my London home. Like him, I was delayed many times while the necessary resurfacing took place. We had precisely the same experience when Whitehall was resurfaced earlier this year. I compliment those responsible because they did it as quickly as it could conceivably have


been done, and they seem to have done a very good job, but for several weeks there were interruptions. That was for just a few weeks, and we all knew that that job would be accomplished. With Parliament square, however, we are talking about four, five or six years, with lorries moving every hour. It could be catastrophic.
We all know what happens when it rains in London —the whole place seizes up. Traffic is held up when people come to demonstrate in Parliament. I am not talking about those who come with the deliberate attempt of causing disruption, which only occasionally happens, as it did one day last year when a group of students sat in the road. That is very rare. Most people who come here behave in an extremely sensible and law-abiding manner. Nevertheless, there are many of them, and it is their right to come. One can imagine what matters would be like with the lorries as well.
It is incumbent on those who are promoting the Bill to think, and to think again, about whether the two alternatives that the Committee proved to be feasible should be considered. I hope that, if the Bill goes to the Opposed Bill Commitee, that Committee will call for evidence and look at the matter very critically indeed.

Miss Hoey: I accept that there will be great disruption in the Westminster area. Presumably, when the construction is in progress, many people in the Westminster area will choose to spend their lunch hours crossing Waterloo bridge and spending time in Jubilee gardens. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even that will not be possible because Jubilee gardens will be completely ruined for perhaps eight years? Does he agree also that that would be an even greater disruption for the people of London than what would happen in this area?

Mr. Cormack: That is possible. I shall not be drawn along that line because I do not know as much about that matter as the hon. Lady does. I believe that that area is in her constituency, or certainly is adjacent to it, and she knows a great deal about it. Of course I know Jubilee gardens, but I am not an expert on it. That is why I am concentrating my remarks on the area for which the House has given me and my colleagues a certain responsibility.
Another point that has not been taken into account is the security aspect. There are two sides to that. First, there is the building period. We all know what happens when there is a security alarm. I was dining very close to the Carlton club a fortnight ago, and I saw the chaos and confusion. Thank God nobody was killed there, but there was major confusion. What happens if people need to get quick access to and egress from this Palace during the period of the construction?
Secondly, what concerns me more—I have raised the matter on several occasions in Committee—are the 30,000 extra people day after day being disgorged around the Winston Churchill statue—incidentally, it will be taken away for five years—with all the other implicit problems from a security monitoring point of view. That problem has not been sufficiently taken into account. The factor that has most affected our lives during the 20 years in which I have been in this place has been terrorism. It has transformed our lives and what we can and cannot do around here.

Mr. Ray Powell: How could ceremonial occasions such as the opening of Parliament take place with a ramp around the square? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that point?

Mr. Cormack: I shall refer to the ramp. That is yet another factor. One thing that I am adamant about is that, if the construction is to happen and if Parliament square is to be disrupted in that way, it will make the problem far worse if there is a ramp—it would compound it a thousandfold—because vehicles would have to go up and down as they went around.
Like the hon. Member for Ogmore, I have a great affection for our ceremonial occasions. I believe that they mean a lot to people. The state opening is a great and glittering occasion which means a lot to the people of this country. I would hate to see Her Majesty have to come here in a motor car for four or five years instead of in the procession to which we are all so happily accustomed. I well remember the state opening in February 1974 when she did come in a motor car. It was very subdued—and we know the reason. Nevertheless, in October of that year, when the hon. Gentleman's party was returned to government again—[interruption.]—we all said how splendid it was to have a real state opening again. I do not want four or five years without a proper state opening—

Mr. Cryer: We well remember that October also.

Mr. Cormack: I will not be drawn into that.
I fail to see how we could possibly mount the normal state opening or any other great ceremonial occasion involving Westminster and Westminster hall if there were a ramp.
Many factors must be taken most carefully into account. The Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) agonised over that. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has described how much care, thought and trouble went into the report. After agonising over it, taking evidence and trying to push aside our own prejudices—we all have them—we came to the conclusion outlined in paragraph 51:
As we have said above, the decision on the Jubilee Line proposals in relation to Westminster has not been an easy one. However, we believe that if (and only if) the various conditions we have set out in paragraph 44 above, including those relating to funding of the concrete raft, are met, the adverse short-term impact of the proposed construction works should be minimised, and there may be long-term benefits for the House in terms of the new building project. We therefore recommend that, subject to the acceptance of these conditions, the bill should be given a second reading and submitted to the scrutiny of the Opposed Bill Committee.
It is important that hon. Members do not infer from that that we are backing the Bill. We are giving extremely qualified approval to a proposal that affects Parliament. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to those words "and only if". I stress that it is a unanimous report, unanimously endorsed by the Services Committee, which is presided over by the Leader of the House, which in itself is an important point. Unless my hon. Friend can give me and the rest of the Committee an assurance that the concrete raft provision will be met —I shall not repeat the details because they have been graphically described by the hon. Member for Jarrow—I cannot conceivably do other than oppose the Bill tonight. If my hon. Friend can give me that assurance, I am prepared to sit back and to see the Bill—possibly—be given its Second Reading.
The Committee stated:
and only if … the Bill should be given a second reading".
There is a lot of misunderstanding about parliamentary terminology both outside and inside the House. To give a Bill its Second Reading is not to give approval for a certain piece of legislation. It is simply to say, "All right, this is something that merits careful consideration." I have frequently voted for a Second Reading on the condition that the Bill is amendable. If it is amended, I shall vote for it on Third Reading. During my time in the House, on several occasions I have not voted on Third Reading for a Bill that I supported on Second Reading. Indeed, on occasions, I have voted against a Bill on Third Reading, having voted for its Second Reading. There is nothing peculiar or incompatible in that.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a more important distinction? Whereas with a public Bill the position is as he described, in private legislation, subject to reference from the Chair, a Second Reading passes the Bill on for examination by Committee. It is within the power of the Committee either to require changes, if it agrees that the Bill should continue, or to dispose of the Bill. There is a great distinction between Second Readings on public and private Bills.

Mr. Cormack: Indeed there is. I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman is a much greater expert on private Bills than me. Most of my experience has been in public legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right. The process of scrutiny to which the Bill will be subjected if it receives a Second Reading is of fundamental importance. We said that it should be submitted to scrutiny. Scrutiny means detailed examination, not a cursory glance. It means the most detailed examination.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has already said that there are 95 petitions against the Bill. I am not sufficiently expert to know whether that is an all-time record, but it is a figure that has not been reached in recent years. A great many people have expressed various anxieties. As the Chairman of the Committee made plain, that does not include Members of Parliament because we cannot petition Parliament. If we had the opportunity, we would certainly make the number up to 96 because we have concerns about Parliament square.
There is massive concern about the Bill. It has been expressed by a range of bodies, from heritage bodies, such as English Heritage, to which Parliament has delegated authority over historic buildings, to Westminster city council, amenity societies, and local residents' groups. One could go on and on. A great many people are anxious about the Bill.
I do not envy hon. Members who will serve on the Opposed Private Bill Committee if it is established. They will have to devote many hours to go into details with the petitioners beside which the hours that my Committee devoted will pale into insignificance.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman refers to the decisions and recommendations of my Committee. He will be aware, because he was present at the sitting of the Committee when we finally discussed the Bill, that it was made clear that the alternative suggestions and proposals to move the station from Parliament square to St. James's park were put on the table. We had received information from our assessors and the engineers who examined the proposals. We have not moved from that position.

Mr. Cormack: That is how I understand the position. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He, the hon. Member for Jarrow and I are in accord. Our names are on the blocking motion for that reason. I fully understand why the two Government Whips on the Committee could not add their names to the blocking motion. However, I do not give away any secrets by saying that they support US. Indeed, it is a unanimous report.

Mr. Don Dixon: The hon. Gentleman and I and others on the Committee spent many hours discussing the merits or demerits of the proposal. At no time did we envisage that such an important Bill would be allocated only three hours for Second Reading. If we had realised that, we should have recommended that the Bill be given more than one session on the Floor of the House before being given a Second Reading.

Mr. Cormack: I was not present for the debate the other night, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman and others were present. I agree with him. Three hours is not long enough. I do not say that to criticise my hon. Friend the Minister. Many hon. Members have genuine constituency interests on this matter. I have spoken properly and deliberately about my parliamentary responsibilities, as did the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and as will the hon. Member for Jarrow, if he is called. We do not represent London constituencies, but the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) do, and so do other of my hon. Friends. It is important that everyone who has an interest has an opportunity to state his view.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most disturbing aspects of the Bill, as with the King's Cross Railways Bill, is the attempt by its draftsmen and promoters of the Bill to oust the general law? Clause 14, in common with the notorious clause 19 in the Kings Cross Railways Bill, seeks to give a privilege and waive the otherwise adequate safeguards of planing consent for listed buildings. The promoters are trying to get them out of the way to ride roughshod over our heritage and other aspects of that which we want to preserve. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is reprehensible and that such a clause should be struck out?

Mr. Cormack: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. He and I have a shared interest, as do many other hon. Members, in historic buildings. Many of us have struggled hard to get the law and its protective facilities extended, and to have anything like that set aside for purely commercial reasons is wrong.
My hon. Friend has highlighted yet another extra burden that will fall upon hon. Members who are appointed to the Opposed Private Bill Committee. I hope that they will read carefully what has been said this evening and will consider that they have an added obligation to examine and to scrutinise to ensure that nothing goes by default.
We are dealing with an area of London that boasts some of the most interesting, attractive and important historic buildings—in Parliament square we have some of the most important buildings in the world. It is vital that whatever is done should not endanger their stability or structure.
I have asked a number of questions of the people at London Underground about the effects of any works on the Clock Tower. I well remember that when the underground car park of the House was constructed many detailed questions were asked about that work. Those people have sought to assure me that there will be no danger, and I genuinely believe that they have tackled the matter carefully. They certainly believe what they say, but it is important to consider that matter. If we look across the square to Westminster Central hall, for example, we soon realise that some buildings are not in such fine fettle as this House.
In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Jarrow, may I say that it is important that everyone interested in the Bill should have an opportunity to explain his or her fears and misgivings and to ask questions. It is incumbent upon the sponsor of the Bill to come before the House before the Bill receives its Second Reading with clear, comprehensive and reassuring answers. I sympathise with his predicament, but, after all, he took the job on voluntarily. I want him to know that I do not think that he made a sufficiently reassuring speech when he introduced the Bill. My hon. Friend can, of course, seek leave to speak again, and I hope that he will. He will have to make quite a long speech as he must touch on all the points raised. I have no intention of doing anything other than going into the No Lobby if I cannot have that categorical assurance that we have sought in our unanimous report, submitted on behalf of the House.
What is being proposed will change the centre of Westminster for the life of one Parliament, if not two. People may be elected to this House who serve their entire parliamentary career without seeing anything but a building site. If we are to have such an upheaval, and with it the dust, noise and dirt about which our constituents often complain to us when large constructions are under way in our constituencies, a national public benefit must derive from it. I am not yet fully persuaded that it is essential for the station to be here for that benefit to accrue. I await further persuasion, but this evening, or whenever the vote is taken, I cannot support the Bill, or even abstain from voting, unless the assurances that we have sought are, to the very last letter, jot and tittle, answered satisfactorily by my hon. Friend the Minister.

10 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for being called to speak.
We have heard contributions from both sides of the House on the importance of the Bill to this building and city. I hope that the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and others will excuse me if, partly because they made their case well, I follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and address the issues that affect not just those who work here, but those who live here all the time. I do so with some justification as, of all the boroughs and constituencies through which the line, if built, will pass, it travels for a considerably greater length through mine. Therefore, there are more people affected by the Bill who live and work in Southwark and Bermondsey than anywhere else.
The prospect of a new line is a great opportunity, which should come to various groups of people. It should clearly come as much if not more to those whose home is London as to anyone else. That is why I was happy to associate myself with the initiative of the hon. Member for Newham, South and my other colleagues who are Members for the London Docklands development corporation constituencies and the wider docklands area, and with the instruction that has been selected. After a decade of development in the docklands, there is a feeling that the docklands programme got off on the wrong foot because it was not specifically targeted at regenerating the communities of inner, south-east and east London.
I am glad to say that ever since I have been in the House —seven years and more—successive Ministers for Public Transport and Secretaries of State for Transport have conceded that there is a great need for public transport provision in south London. One of the Minister's predecessors, now the Minister for Overseas Development, conceded that south-east London was a white hole on the transport map. The tube map of London shows that that is certainly the case.
The figures given in a written answer last year by the Minister's immediate predecessor, now the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, stated that there were 244 London underground stations north of the river and only 29 south of the river, which confirms the point. The issue is particularly important for people who live in communities such as mine and those of the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), the majority of whom do not have any private transport and so depend enormously on public transport.
The idea of the Bill has been in the air for several years. It originally came as a proposal for one part of the regeneration, but was initiated in its present form by Olympia and York. It had been on the drawing board in different forms. It was a welcome proposal, particularly when last autumn the Secretary of State announced that the line was to have the go-ahead. He said:
I am pleased to be able to give the go-ahead to the first major addition to London's Underground network since the Victoria line was approved, a quarter of a century ago.
He continued:
This will greatly support regeneration of docklands; it will relieve congestion on roads and the existing rail network including the docklands light railway; and it will further strengthen public transport links with BR lines at Waterloo (including the new Channel tunnel terminal) and at London Bridge. The new line will also much improve accessibility for areas south of the Thames in Southwark and Bermondsey and in London's east end in Tower Hamlets and Newham that are not now well served by public transport. I know how welcome this news will be to those areas."—[Official Report, 16 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 398.]
The announcement of a new tube line serving the docklands communities, where public transport by any definition is poor, was welcome. It was good to see in the Bill and in the statement produced in the last few days by the Bill's promoters in support of Second Reading the following fairly carefully phrased sentence:
It is envisaged that there will be stations at Westminster, Waterloo, Southwark, London Bridge, Bermondsey, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, North Greenwich, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford.
Obviously, I am able to speak specifically only for my constituents but I know that people in the Isle of Dogs, some of whom have written to hon. Members, want the line as well because they need better public transport. The


Jubilee line users group also supports the proposal. As the Minister knows, one of the alternative modes of transport in the jigsaw, the river bus, does not now stop at as many places in docklands as it once did. That means that we depend even more on the underground system.
It therefore came as a surprise to me—the Minister told me a few days ago that it surprised him, too—to see in the national press on 10 July stories from which I shall quote two headings. The headline in The Times said:
Tube line may be dropped".
The headline in The Daily Telegraph said:
Threat to new Jubilee stations".
Two articles by transport correspondents said that it was possible that the Southwark and Bermondsey stations would not be built.
I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with the Minister and his predecessor. A further meeting was envisaged before this debate. When we met earlier this week, the Minister confirmed that it was their policy to build those stations. When I met the Minister's predecessor in April I was accompanied by the chief executive of Southwark and relevant officers and the then leader of the council. The Minister appeared to support the proposals and it seemed that they could be justified on economic grounds and that the money could be provided. More than £400 million of public money has been committed by the Government to a line that includes all the stations on the list that I read to the House.
Rightly, there have been detailed appraisals of the line as a whole and of its component parts and weighty documents contain the most recent conclusions. The appraisals, one more clearly than the other, justify the stations south of the river, Southwark and Bermondsey. They make it clear that the justifications are not simply micro-economic: the stations are crucial to the regeneration of the whole area.
We truly need a new line to link the rail head termini at Waterloo and London Bridge to the new opportunities in docklands. It is, however, equally important for people living in the inner city to be able to take advantage of the job opportunities that are arising in docklands. It is just as important for them to be able to travel a few miles to obtain jobs as it is for commuters to be able to travel into London from Kent, Sussex and Surrey; indeed—as the Minister would probably expect me to say—I consider it more important.
The Minister and his predecessors have been courteous enough to receive the alternative appraisals that have been commissioned by my local Council. I have it on good authority that the London Underground estimates of local benefit were, in fact, underestimates—that the potential advantages in terms of job prospects and, in particular, the number of users are greater than is suggested by the figures presented formally to the Government.
Let me present my figures—a short litany which, in my view, makes an overwhelming case for the building of the Southwark and Bermondsey stations. If Bermondsey is not built, there will be a distance of 2.7 km between London Bridge and the proposed Canada Water station: that would be the longest distance between any two stations on the extension, 60 per cent. longer than the mean distance between stations. If Southwark and Bermondsey stations are not built, Southwark will be the only one of the four docklands boroughs—Southwark, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Newham—without any new stations committed, although it has by far the longest

stretch of line. Greenwich has North Greenwich, Tower Hamlets has Canary Wharf and Newham has Canning Town; Southwark, with more than 5 km of line, will have no new station at all.
If stations are not built at Southwark and Bermondsey, the relationship between the borough and the area served by the station and the line the ratio of station to line, as it were—will be far worse than in any other borough. None of the other comparisons has produced such a disadvantageous ratio as that of one station for every 2.6 km of line.
Perhaps more telling than any of those figures, however, are the calculations about the likely use of the stations. According to the figures supplied to me by Southwark Officer, no doubt derived from London Underground, the anticipated use of both Southwark and Bermondsey—taken separately—will exceed the use of 12 stations that are already on the line: Stanmore, Canons Park, Queensbury, Kingsbury, Wembley Park, Neasden, Dollis Hill, Willesden Green, Kilburn, West Hampstead, Swiss Cottage and St. John's Wood.
Even Baker Street station has fewer users than are anticipated for the Southwark station, as have five other stations on the new line: Canada Water, North Greenwich, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford. We find ourselves facing the ridiculous proposition that, according to forecasts, Southwark's passenger usage would be greater than, or equal to, that of 13 out of 16 existing Jubilee line stations and five out of the nine committed new stations, while the forecast passenger average for Bermondsey station is higher than, or equal to, that of 12 of the 16 existing Jubilee line stations.

Mr. Spearing: Apart from what I have read in newspaper reports, I have seen nothing about any reduction in the number of stations. All the literature showered on us by London Regional Transport has featured the two stations. The hon. Gentleman may not realise that we do not understand why there was ever any doubt. When did he learn that there was any possibility of the withdrawal of the stations? It looks to me like the old docklands light railway-Canning Town thing all over again.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will give me another minute and a half, I shall give my conclusions on that point.
Southwark station's proposed passenger usage is roughly equal to that of Earl's Court or Elephant and Castle—hardly quiet, cosy suburban stations. Even Bermondsey station, which it is anticipated will have less use, will be equivalent to Marylebone or Edgware Road —again, not small stations. The Minister rightly said when I met him the other day that we do not want another Mornington Crescent. A helpful officer of Southwark council, with the help of London Underground, did some research for me. In the spring of 1988, the latest period for which we have figures, Mornington Crescent had about 2,000 users during peak morning hours. It is anticipated that Bermondsey will have at least 80 per cent. more.
We have all the figures and the evidence appears to stack up. I have not yet found anyone who is not in favour of the stations. London Underground is in favour of stations at Southwark and Bermondsey. The London borough of Southwark is enthusiastically in favour of them. Olympia and York, in its letter to Members, said:


Firstly, it will bring fast efficient public rail transport to south and east London, especially improving across-London transport services for people living in Newham, Southwark, Lewisham and Greenwich.
It goes on to say:
It will also enable people living in Canning Town and Bermondsey to get to the West End and to reach other parts of London faster.
The Minister has told me explicitly, and he has also put it in writing, that not only was the line planned on the assumption that there would be stations in the borough of Southwark at Southwark and Bermondsey, but the Government's policy is that they should be.
To paraphrase a phrase from somewhere else, if all those people are for us, who then is against us? There is only one possibility. It can only be the Treasury. I have not asked. It may not formally have considered the matter. I hope that it has not. I hope that it will be for us, too. There is certainly no logical case for anybody not to be for us.
For decades before I became a Member of Parliament for Southwark and Bermondsey my constituents were waiting for a decent east-west rail link. It would be folly to have an underground line without any stations on one of its longest stretches. It is like planning a bus route with no bus stops or a motorway without slip roads. It would be madness indeed.
I hope that the arguments are so convincing that the Minister realises that we had better have the line.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Ridley will be speaking next.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous again. I have not yet seen the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Chamber tonight, but I accept that his appearance would cause a bit of a disturbance.

Mr. Skinner: I assume that the hon. Gentleman intends to go on until the end as he has a lot of things to say, but I just heard the caucus of the 1922 committee say that Ridley was on his way out and I assumed that, if the debate were to continue for any length of time, he would be joining the hon. Member on the Back Benches.

Mr. Hughes: It would not cause me any dissatisfaction if the Secretary of State became a Back Bencher this weekend. I just hope that he does not join these Benches, although I do not think that he would. But we hear that there is to be a reshuffle, so the Prime Minister will have every opportunity to take speedy action. Those of us who shadowed him when he was Secretary of State for the Environment would certainly say amen to that.
The line also raised several wider issues. The hon. Members for Staffordshire, South and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) mentioned the environmental issues affecting Westminster. One of the key issues is the effect that the Bill will have on the environment. It will be significant wherever work is taking place and not merely where stations are being built. For example, there will be vent shafts, digging for disposal of waste and the removal of Waste, some of which will be taken away by barge and some by road.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall and I share responsibility, as her constituency covers the major part of Waterloo and mine covers the rest, for a significant piece of rare green space by the river which will be lost for five

years. So the environmental effects are all-important, and I shall list the matters that I hope the Minister and the sponsor of the Bill will realise need to be considered, and that we are concerned about.
Like the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), I hope that clause 14 will be dropped from the Bill. Such a clause found total disfavour with the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill, as it sought to take away the normal planning controls. The Committee has made its position clear on that issue, as did English Heritage, which asked for Members' support. The Minister has been sympathetic to such issues in the past and I hope that he will make his position clear. All the safeguards that are built in to protect the environment must not be swept away in the Bill, and I hope that we shall hear no more about that.
It is imperative that we have quiet trains. The Evening Standard today states:
London Underground is to spend more than £500,000 smoothing out the shake, rattle and roll of its trains.
Loads of people will say amen to that too. London Underground
have already promised that when the new Jubilee line extension is built through south-east London and on to Stratford by the mid-1990s it will be a 'whispering railway'."[Interruption.]

Mr. Cryer: Hon. Members are standing just beyond the Bar chatting, and it is intrusive. I think that they are talking about ways to get rid of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but that is their business and I hope that they will do it elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if any hon. Members who are talking but who are not in the Chamber were to carry on their discussions elsewhere.

Mr. Hughes: I could not hear what the hon. Members were saying, but they are certainly all prospective contenders for office, so they might have been discussing the Secretary of State.
Quiet tube trains are important, and I hope that that investment goes ahead. As the quotation from a London Underground spokesman stated:
All we have to do is to find out how"—
meaning, how to achieve it.
For the convenience and comfort of many Southwark residents, it is of paramount importance that we have a resilient track as the line is often near to the surface. I calculate that we need just under 4 km of resilient track in Southwark and it is important that that is costed for and built in at the beginning.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The need for quiet trains would be echoed by the Institution of Civil Engineers, which is in favour of the Bill. It is in the process of building a new underground lecture theatre that will be close to the underground line, as it is proposed at present. It would be interested in quiet trains, and hopes that the final alignment of the underground railway will take full account of the new works in progress at the institution.

Mr. Hughes: I hope that the institution will offer its services not only in self-interest, which I understand, but in the interests of the rest of us. The line will go by Guy's hospital, under important churches south of the river and under many housing estates where people live close together. The prospects of an underground line under their homes is worrying enough, let alone the regular thud and


rumble of trains. That hardly suggests to the individual that the proposals will be of real benefit. So far, London Underground has given no commitment in that respect. Perhaps the Minister can say whether it has now done so. If it has, I welcome that and shall be delighted to hear of it. If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall be pleased to let him do so.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, inevitably, my contribution to the debate must be brief because it concerns the financing of London Regional Transport.
Our policy is that there should be stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, but we must justify that commitment through the appraisals that are expected in October. We made it clear from the word go that they are needed, but I hope that the appraisals will clearly justify constructing those two stations.
It is Government policy that those two stations should be built, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates also that the question of the concrete raft must be addressed in the same way. That is a point for the Committee. The Government understand the strength of the arguments about not only the two stations but the raft. Once the plans for phase 2 of the parliamentary building are known, it will be open to London Regional Transport to discuss and to negotiate with the Department of the Environment the construction of the raft.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I appreciate that the Bill is not from the Minister but technically and in substance is a London Underground Bill. However, problems arise when, after a lengthy gestation, a Bill comes before the House with problems still unresolved.
I support the proposals for the line, but I cannot tonight vote for a Bill that does not incorporate a commitment to two stations which were always part of the plan, but which may now not be constructed. In that respect, I am in a similar position to other hon. Members who say, "We are not againt the concept of the line but we want to know on what terms it is to be constructed."
The chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, who is also a member of the New Building Sub-Committee, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), made the point, as have other hon. Members, that we have a limited time in which to debate many points of view, but that the crucial issue has been the subject of questions that we have all asked, and to which we should have received answers by now.
It is not as if we have not asked those questions before. It is not a matter of popping questions at the last moment. We have consistently asked questions in the hope that we should receive answers before tonight. We could then have said, "Fine. Thank you. You have reassured us, and we can now co-operate, collaborate and proceed."

Mr. Cryer: Right hon. and hon. Members also want to see the necessary provisions included in the Bill. We shall then know that we have something more than an assurance subject to a great many qualifications. If no amendments are made in Committee by a tiny handful of right hon. and hon. Members, there will be no Report stage. Unless the features in question are included in the Bill at this stage, there is a real risk that it could pass through this House without the alterations that will add credibility to the assurances that have been given.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) makes a valid point. I say to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and to other hon. Members that they should give thought to reassuring the whole House. I do not want to see the absence of public transport in south London. I want to see more public transport there, but I also want to ensure that the accompanying issues are resolved. I am sure that the hon. Members for Vauxhall for Deptford and for Newham, South, and other hon. Members, hold the same view. We must have answers.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assumed that the Bill comprised not just text but the deposited plans that several hon. Members have consulted on a number of occasions in the Private Bill Office. Those plans relate to phases 1, 2, 3 and 4, lines of deviation, and so on, and include the two stations mentioned tonight. However, in a helpful intervention, the Minister said that depending on the result of assessments of which I was unaware until a few minutes ago, it may be that, ultimately, those two stations will not be built. Therefore, are the deposited plans part of the Bill? If not, we cannot consider whether we should support it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hughes: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that point clearly causes concern. The Minister and the promoters will be aware that there has been no opposition to the stations that were originally planned being constructed.
Returning to noise, I am told—it seems to be a perfectly valid point—that the United States' noise standards for resilient track are higher—a 35 decibel limit rather than 40 decibels here. I hope that those standards will be adopted for the Bill.
I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson): there must be facilities for disabled people. When building new public transport we must ensure that everybody can use it. I do not pretend that there is one perfect answer—I know that lifts are planned at some stations—but I hope that this point will be taken on board and that we shall not find ourselves behind the times on that important issue.
Concerns about planning have been expressed at my constituency meetings. We want the powers of local authorities to control noise, traffic, access and matters affecting communities to be retained, but the Bill says to local authorities, "You cannot have those powers." A parallel is that when outline planning permission is obtained, the details are left to the local authority to regulate. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, it surely should not mean that we are removing local authorities' powers to regulate detailed planning matters.
It is important that the line is a part of the rail network. I do not doubt the Minister's good faith, but the Bill must be followed with a Bill for a link with an extended east London line. If we are to regenerate the rest of Southwark down to Lewisham and Peckham, there must be more east London line. We might have had such a Bill last year, but it was not presented. However, it must be presented this year, and the chief executive of the London Docklands development corporation agrees with its importance. There is the possibility of an inner-rail circle round London and I hope that that will be available.

Mr. Freeman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The House will know that the Government strongly support the Bill and hope very much that it will be given a Second Reading. The east London rail study mentioned a Bill for the Jubilee line. That is an important first step. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention not only the docklands light railway to Lewisham extension but the east London line extension—two matters to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) attaches much importance, as I do. They are part of the east London rail study. They must be subsequent to the Bill, which is important and which the Government support.

Mr. Hughes: The Bill is not a single proposal standing in isolation. It must link parts of London that have no decent public transport, thereby linking people with places of work and development. That point was made in a different context by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South.
We will need a decent code of construction practice. We must ensure that work is carried out at proper times and that the arrival and departure of vehicles is properly controlled. Unless there is proper enforcement, the best code in the world will be to no avail. The problems of air pollution, noise pollution, soil pollution, dirt on pavements and roads and all the knock-on effects of congestion must be considered. I hope that there will be a mechanism to enforce construction practice.
It is no good expecting hard-pressed local authorities suddenly to divert all their resources to monitoring what happens in Parliament square, at Waterloo station or by London bridge. They have other things to do, so they will not be able to carry out such monitoring. I hope that hon. Members realise that it is important that we give local authorities the help, which must come from somewhere else.

Mr. Cormack: It is difficult to enforce rules and if they are transgressed, it is difficult to put matters right, as we all know from our constituencies.

Mr. Hughes: That is true and I hope that the specific points will be taken on board.
We are now at a difficult moment in the debate. We were provisionally allowed only three hours. Many hon. Members have perfectly valid and proper points to make. I can speak for other hon. Members with whom I have discussed this when I say that many of us do not want the Bill to disappear. We do not want to put it off; we want the Bill. However, we want a Bill that contains assurances and on which hon. Members have had a proper debate. The right hon. Member for Salford, East made the point that for a Second Reading debate, the House usually has a period of about six hours until 10 pm.
This is probably the most significant private Bill some of us have debated, especially for people who live south of the river. We have seen how controversial these matters are north of the river. We have seen that the King's Cross Railways Bill generated either the longest or the second longest sitting ever of a Committee on a private Bill.
It is important that we have sufficient time for all the points to be put on Second Reading and I hope that it will be possible for the House to be able to hear those points soon. I hope that it will then be possible for answers to be given, and then we can proceed to Committee and come out with a clean, tightly ordered and generally satisfactory Bill that meets the concerns of hon. Members of all parties

with constituency, parliamentary and wider interests. That is the objective of this debate. The task before us is to ensure that we enable that to happen.
No hon. Member is unwilling to co-operate with all who have done the work. I pay tribute to the work done by many groups such as London Underground and my borough council. However, the work must be put into effect to get a decent product. We need a decent product because this is our only opportunity to get it right. If we get it wrong, it will be too late to do anything about it. It will be no good to say after the event, as people have said about motorways, "It wasn't big enough. We didn't think of that." We must ensure that we deal with all the issues at this stage.
I hope that the House is clear about the concern over the Bill and that Ministers are clear about the specific concerns of hon. Members. I hope that the promoters realise that they have a lot more work to do and that all hon. Members will realise that we have an opportunity to do that if we are all given the chance.
All of us who have concerns have already spent considerable time on the Bill. We do not come tonight for the first time to express an interest. We have spent hours on the Bill because we are concerned that we get the right product. It is important now that we take on that effort, that we co-operate across the parties—

Mr. Thorne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I cannot accept the motion at this time because I think that the House will want to hear the views of the Minister, of the Opposition Front Bench and of the Chairman of the Services Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Other hon. Members want to speak and—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had three hours of debate on the Bill. I accept that some hon. Members have not been called, but is not it right to say that this is a long Second Reading debate? I cannot understand why the motion has not been accepted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to bring the proceedings to a conclusion. However, it is a matter for the absolute discretion and judgment of the Chair. It is not an easy matter to decide. However, the House will want to hear the views of the Government, of the Opposition and of the Chairman of the Select Committee. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

It being three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [10 July].

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 19 July.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to the point of order that I raised earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the closure is not allowed and we cannot have the Second Reading today, is it not clear that a small number of hon. Members, none of them from London and most of whom are Labour Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to challenge or to debate my ruling. It is a matter for my judgment. These are not easy matters to decide, but I have used my judgment and ruled accordingly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. John Marshall.

Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that second thoughts are sometimes better than first thoughts. Many people in London tonight will be distressed that the House did not come to a decision on the Second Reading of the London Underground Bill. It is a vital Bill to improve London transport, and it should be allowed a Second Reading.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that earlier, while you were not in the Chair, the Minister tried to rise but one of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) who is a member of the New Building Sub-Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cryer: I am trying to help you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful. However, we should not debate the ruling from the Chair. We have rules. It is a matter for my judgment. It is my responsibility, which I accept entirely.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that we can move on, and that hon. Members will not challenge my ruling.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: In no way am I challenging your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I would find it useful to know how often there has been a full three-hour debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is persisting in seeking to debate my ruling. We should move on now to the defence order.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Hughes: It is a point of order. I would not seek to incur your displeasure or to be thrown out of the Chamber —particularly on your birthday, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, on a number of occasions when this difficult matter has been decided by the Chair and when the Chair has of course sought to be fair, we have talked about the amount of time taken up by the Second Reading debate. My clear understanding from previous occasions is that, when a matter has been before the House on Second Reading for this length of time—three hours—in my short experience a closure has always been allowed. I find it difficult to understand why, on this vital matter for London, you have not allowed a closure tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My ruling is not unprecedented.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time.
I felt that the House would wish to know the views of the Government, of the Official Opposition and of the Chairman of the Services Committee in respect of a Bill that has a significant impact on our affairs in the House. I have ruled on the matter, and we really should move on.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are being besieged with points of order because the Minister who is due to open the next debate is not available. Conservative Members are raising points of order to allow time for the Minister to arrive.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One point of order at a time. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) often throws me a lifebelt. However, once again it has rather hit me on the head. We really should now move on.

Service Discipline

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to move,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.
On behalf of the House, I begin by paying tribute to the late hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who, alas, is not in his place today.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services. The House will be aware that it is a long—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the mumblings of the deputy Chief Whip, who is aspiring to higher things, be replaced by the Minister, who is still a Minister unless there has been a secret reshuffle that we do not know about?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Mr. Garel-Jones.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The House will be aware—[interruption.]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Conservative deputy Chief Whip—[Interruption.] I am asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not Conservative Back-Bench Members, whether it is in order for the Government deputy Chief Whip to start to move the order and then to give way to the Minister of State to continue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion has been properly moved, and I have called the Minister to continue the debate. Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Before I start my remarks, I should like to express our deep sense of sympathy to the widow and child of the late hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who, of course, has previously addressed the House in this debate. His regrettable and early death is something that we all bitterly regret and it is a great loss indeed for the Opposition Front Bench.
The purpose of this—[interruptioni.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate and who are engaging in noisy conversation at the Bar of the House please withdraw from the Chamber quickly and quietly?

Mr. Hamilton: The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Those Acts together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services. The House will be aware that it is a long-established practice for service discipline to be fully reviewed every five years by means of the consideration of an Armed Forces Bill and for the disciplinary code as then enacted to be reviewed annually in the intervening years by

an Order in Council which is itself approved by resolution of each House. Those arrangements were endorsed by the Select Committee examining the last Armed Forces Bill in 1986.
The constraints of military discipline mean that the legal status of the men and women of the armed forces is special, and it is right that it should be subject to approval each year by Parliament. Unless they are reviewed by Acts of Parliament, the three service discipline Acts will expire on 31 December 1991. The House can therefore expect to have an early opportunity to consider service discipline procedures in depth.
The House will, of course, understand that I cannot anticipate the specific provisions of the next armed forces Bill. There is, however, one aspect on which a general observation might be appropriate. Since the passage of the 1986 Act, we have continued to monitor closely changes in civilian legislation that have a bearing not only on the disciplinary systems of the three services but on other matters covered by successive armed forces Acts, especially those affecting civilians overseas, who are subject to service laws by virtue of their employment or as dependants. It remains our general intention to reflect such changes by means of amendments to the service discipline Acts in so far as it is sensible and practical to do so.
Discipline is well maintained in the services and service men and women recognise that it is in their interests that it should be. This annual debate on the continuation order inevitably tends to highlight those rare areas where discipline has fallen below the very high standard that is demanded. Since the services are drawn from the population at large, they cannot altogether escape the trends occurring in society at large. It is clearly right, therefore, that they pay considerable attention to providing practical advice, education and counselling to service men and women who have problems, especially relating to alcohol or drug abuse or concerning their personal life.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As a member of the Select Committee to which the Minister referred a moment ago, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that the care and protection of the children of service men matches the development in the care and protection afforded to children in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I think that I am satisfied on that front. That is one area to which the welfare organisations pay considerable attention. Obviously, we are mindful of the families and recognise the importance of looking after them as well. We are confident that that is being done competently by the welfare organisations at the moment.
In addition, we are indebted to the voluntary and other agencies that play a vital role in providing welfare services to members of the forces and their families, especially overseas. Whether in support of NATO or in other tasks, our armed services have an essential role in safeguarding our interests and our freedoms. I happily take this opportunity to pay tribute to their profes-sionalism and dedication.
A fair and equitable system of discipline is essential if we are to maintain good morale in the forces a crucial factor, given the demographic trough. It is our responsibility to ensure that the system of discipline, on


which the efficiency and effectiveness of their work so much depends, strikes a sensible balance between the rights of service men and women as citizens and the extra constraints which must necessarily be imposed.
That is what the services discipline Acts seek to do, and I therefore invite the House to approve the order.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I echo the Minister's praise for the men and women who serve in the armed services—I shall say more on that later. Secondly—and more particularly—we were pleased to hear the Minister's kind remarks about our colleague, Sean Hughes. As the Minister is aware, Sean's death was a major shock to all of us. We suspected that he was getting better, and we hoped that he would be among us again very soon. Our thoughts this evening must be with Sean's wife and daughter. In the time that he was a member of our defence team, he made a major contribution to our policy changes. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that everyone in the House will miss him, because he had only friends in this place.
The debate is about an order that provides a statutory basis for disciplining the three services, as the Minister has explained. In his speech on this matter on 14 July 1988, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), drew attention to a pamphlet entitled, "The Armed Forces: Your Rights and Responsibilities". He said that a copy would be given to all new recruits to enable them to understand their rights and responsibilities. The Minister described the pamphlet in the following terms:
it covers rights in regard to injustice or ill-treatment, equal opportunity of employment in the armed forces, voting and injury on duty."—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 677.]
In his speech on the order on 28 June 1989, the present Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that the pamphlet was to be updated, expanded and circulated to all new recruits. Why circulate the pamphlet only to new members of the forces? Why not circulate it to everyone in the forces so that everyone knows where the Government stand on the matter?
No hon. Member tolerates bullying, cruel initiation ceremonies or any other unacceptable behaviour. Such behaviour must be stamped out and any misdemeanour must be dealt with fairly but rapidly. One of the problems is that we cannot possibly know the real extent of bullying in the forces. How could we? Many people who are subjected to bad treatment are too afraid to report incidents because the retribution could be even worse than the original bullying. While accepting the difficulties, can the Minister tell the House whether to the best of his knowledge the position is improving or deteriorating?
Most service men are well aware of their responsibilities and duties. They are members of a special group in society. They need extreme discipline to carry out some of the dangerous tasks that they have to tackle. While we praise the vast majority, questions must be asked about the activities of a few. I re-iterate that most of our forces personnel are highly self disciplined. However, it does not take much to make morale sag. Morale can be lost either by unacceptable activities or, worse, by suggestions and

exaggeration about the magnitude of the problem. We must not fall into the trap of purporting to know what we do not, but I wish to mention some of the realities.
Several matters worry the Opposition. We are worried about the premature voluntary retirement rates. The rate was about 22,500 in 1987–88 and 27,000 in 1989–90, an increase over two years of 21 per cent. We recognise the need for a substantially smaller armed force but we are worried that to allow the armed forces to be reduced by attrition will result in an imbalance in the mix of personnel.
In its 19th report the Armed Forces Pay Review Body also drew attention to those anxieties when it stated:
We are concerned with any problems in recruiting or retaining certain groups, for example, those with specialist skills.
Reductions should be carefully planned in order the keep the right balance of skills and expertise in the services.
One of the difficulties with maintaining service morale is that there is considerable uncertainty about the future role of the armed forces. The Government should recognise that their continuing refusal to discuss in public the "Options for change" study has a profoundly detrimental effect on service morale and consequently on recruitment and retention.
The recent NATO communiqué called for smaller and restructured active forces and it will scale back the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to see any connection between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the motion before the House.

Mr. Boyes: You may say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, with respect, discipline in the forces is affected to a large extent by morale. I argue that if morale is high the possibilities of discipline problems are reduced. That is affected by the quality of life and the expectations of forces personnel.
The report also mentioned the development of multinational corps. What will that mean for the British armed forces? Will it mean shorter tours and a greater dependency on reservists? Will a reduced requirement for training lead to the Ministry phasing out all low-flying training below 250 ft?
My main concern is that we retain well-trained, highly disciplined armed forces. I do not believe that the majority of hon. Members share some people's fears about increasing indiscipline. We accept that our armed forces consist of self-disciplined, motivated people on whom we might have to depend at some time.
Again, I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about our colleague, Sean Hughes. We also endorse his kind remarks about our forces and the duties that they must undertake.

11 pm

Mr. John Wilkinson: I join in the expressions of sympathy from all parts to the House to the family of the late hon. Member for Knowsley, South, who will be greatly missed.
I do not think that the occasion of the renewal of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Navy Discipline Act 1957 should be a parliamentary formality. My hon. Friend the Minister said that when preparing the next Bill on the armed forces he will seek to amend disciplinary legislation to take into account contemporary realities.
I want to draw two such realities to the attention of the House. The first is the defence of military installations in the current IRA terrorist campaign. This is a national emergency, and it affects the disciplinary arrangements for our armed forces. Has the Ministry of Defence considered whether the disciplinary code under which our reserve forces operate could be amended in view of that terrorist emergency to permit them to conduct guard duties on military installations at risk from IRA attack?
It is anomalous that part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment should be engaged in guarding installations as well as other vital military tasks. By virtue of a lack of appropriate legislative framework, however, the home service force, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons and the Royal Air Force police voluntary reserve and other reservists are specifically precluded from undertaking this task. If they were enabled to carry out those guard duties, it would release valuable regular personnel and the defence of such key military installations would not be so dependent upon the use of security firms.
In January, I put this point to the director of Royal Air Force security at a hearing of the Select Committee on Defence. He said that there were grave difficulties with this proposition; and adduced the argument that he had legislative difficulties in mind. I believe that the appropriate legislation makes provision for the call-out of reserve forces, other than for normal training, but solely on the assumption that it will be done when either "national danger is imminent" or
a great emergency has arisen.
In my judgment, this country faces a terrorist emergency and should take all the necessary measures to combat and to defeat the threat.
The second aspect of the contemporary defence scene that needs examining in relation to discipline and the legislative framework is that Her Majesty's Government are likely to have to use civil air transport assets and merchant shipping more in future as an economy measure, in the light of the "Options for change" exercise. We have powers to requisition ships and civilian aircraft in times of emergency or war, but it is not clear that we can compel either merchant seamen or civil air crews to fly to a war zone or regions where they are at physical risk. There is a danger that they or their unions will refuse to go to such destinations.
If we are to take up from trade merchant ships and civil aircraft in an emergency or war, we must be able to compel the relevant personnel to perform whatever military tasks are required of them. Such legislative provisions do not exist, and they should. That is another matter which my hon. Friend the Minister of State should consider and on which he should report to the House as soon as possible, if he cannot do so when he winds up.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: My contribution will be exceedingly brief. I pay tribute to the late hon. Member for Knowsley, South, Sean Hughes. All hon. Members are saddened by his passing.
Our security services face double jeopardy in their job of preventing terrorism in the most grave and difficult circumstances. Part of the tactic to defeat terrorism is to

reassure the community at large that our security services are subject to the civil law. In practice, I and many others have seen the difficulty of that position.
Two members of the security services were charged with acquiring, in a manner that was not totally legal, a montage of terrorist personnel. It was acquired not, as many people believe, from a locked, but from an unlocked display cabinet in Dunmurry police station. Two soldiers decided to remove a montage from the cabinet when Dunmurry police station was under reconstruction because it had been bombed by terrorists. They removed it not because they wanted to pass it on to loyalist paramilitary organisations, but because one of the soldiers involved was under serious threat from terrorists, and had been warned that he was. He had conveyed this information to members of his family, and had taken the montage in order to alert them to the people who might be on the lookout for him, to murder him. One might say, "There but for the grace of God go all of us who served in Northern Ireland," because we have frequently acquainted our families with the likely threat to our lives while serving in the security forces.
In this instance there was an inquiry about photographs of terrorists being circulated and, to put it in colloquial terms, the soldier was caught out. In order to show that the law was impartial—I do not mean this in a derogatory sense—the soldier was sentenced to a year's imprisonment. The judge in the civil court acknowledged that the soldier had no intention of passing the montage to loyalist paramilitary organisations. However, no account was taken of the fact that that young man was under considerable pressure and feared for his life.
That young soldier has been criminalised. He will serve a year in prison, and when he is released he will not be accepted back into his regiment, and it is likely that he will not have the means to protect himself against a terrorist assault. That is double jeopardy. Hon. Members will have heard me say that I have never experienced bad apples in the Ulster Defence Regiment, but I have encountered many bruised apples, people who have been damaged by the continuing threats, pressures and stress that they face every day.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never before been unable to hear an hon. Member for the chatter going on at the Table in front of me. Would you please suppress it?

Mr. Maginnis: I have used one example to demonstrate the double jeopardy faced by members of our security forces. However, I am making a point not specifically about soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment but about all our soldiers serving in Northern Ireland under the most difficult circumstances. Will the Minister consider the difficulties that they face in circumstances which after 20 years are perhaps no longer unusual but are certainly difficult? Will he make certain that everything is done to ensure that members of our security forces who are trying to protect their lives and those of their families are not made subject to the civil law in a way that criminalises them? If we do not face that problem, we will demoralise the people who have to carry out the difficult task of fighting terrorism. That can only be bad for the morale of our troops.
I leave the Minister to ponder the problem—and to reassure the House that, as they do their difficult job, our troops will not face that double jeopardy of being subject to both civil and military law.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I, too, will be brief.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), and look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on the case that he mentioned. I imagine that they will have to be made in writing; I should very much like to see a copy, for I find that case—if indeed it is as represented by the hon. Gentleman—deeply disturbing.
I wish to make three points. The first relates to the Home Service Force, of which I am a serving member: indeed, I have just returned from a drill night with my unit. As my hon. Friend knows, the point at which a soldier becomes subject to military discipline is the point at which he is attested. The HSF is a small organisation with a very low budget, but we think that it offers good value for money. In my view, our ability to recruit adequate numbers—the majority of HSF units are under strength at present—would be greatly enhanced if we could cut down on the inordinate amount of paperwork involved. Typically, it takes seven months to process the documents before a man can be attested and taken into a unit. Men become disillusioned: in theory, they should not be allowed to be equipped with kit and to go on exercises until the paperwork has been completed.
My second point concerns the new management strategy for defence. It seems to me that the discipline aspect is missing from this very interesting and well-laid-out document. The new strategy presents an enormous opportunity that can be exploited; however, it also presents a considerable danger. That danger stems from—perhaps "lack of understanding" is putting it too strongly— from, rather, a failure to take full account of the difference in terms of discipline and many other factors between members of the armed forces and the other employees for whom such systems are devised.
Let me give a simple example. One of the issues on which the document focuses is the importance of accounting for the way in which time is used. No limit of any sort is placed on the extent to which those who are fully subject to military discipline can be worked; when they are working in Ulster, for example, they may be on the job for all the hours that God gives, except for the minimal number required for obtaining food and sleep. Conversely, when a unit whose members are working extremely hard for much of the time is not fully stretched, it is not reasonable to expect those men to account for every last hour: indeed, it may not be cost-effective for them to try to do so.
Having read a number of articles and examined the new management strategy quite closely, I think that we should be very careful—especially at this crucial time, as it goes into its next stage of implementation—to trade off the upside against the downside when making our assessment. On the one hand, it is genuinely possible to give unit commanders powers to have more control over their unit in ways that are useful to them; on the other hand, there is the real risk that we may generate a good deal of

unnecessary, wasteful and resented paperwork. That is a difficult balance to strike and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take careful account of that.
Thirdly, I welcome the confirmation in my hon. Friend's opening speech that we are to have the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill next year. I was glad to hear him say that the Government would consider developments in the civilian community and, in particular, in legislation sponsored by other Departments. One of the things that most concerns me about the feedback that I get from serving members in the armed forces, who are subject to the military discipline which, among other things, requires them to go wherever they are posted, is the way in which they are disadvantaged by much of the legislation sponsored by other Departments. I could run through a long list. For example, social security regulations often have residence in the United Kingdom qualifications, from which those magic words "or service abroad under the Crown" are omitted. I had a recent case involving legislation on student grants which also contains a United Kingdom residence qualification. So it goes on.
I hope that the Government will see the Armed Forces Bill as an opportunity to ensure that, in ways that in most cases involve only small sums of money, the armed forces are not disadvantaged in the many reforms and advances that the Government introduce through their many Departments by virtue of the fact that they are subjected to military discipline and, as a result, have to go wherever they are posted.
I leave those three thoughts with my hon. Friend. I suspect that he will not be able to reply to them all in detail tonight but I hope that he will write to me on my first point and that he will take all my points into consideration.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my simple tribute to Sean Hughes. He was in every sense a fine, decent and honourable Member of Parliament.
As I mentioned in my intervention, I was a member of the previous Armed Services Bill Select Committee, and I would be most pleased to serve on the next one. On the basis of that experience, I offer a few brief comments on what the Minister said.
For example, the Minister said that the discipline Acts embrace not only the members of the armed services, but the civilian employees and the families of our service men. As a result of my experience, I came to assume that the term discipline includes, for example, redress of grievance procedures as well as disciplinary procedures. It also includes adequate welfare and counselling procedures for service men and their families. That is why I was pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge the need to provide good counselling and guidance to those suffering from alcohol and drug abuse. Many industries now have intelligent, sensible and compassionate alcohol abuse counselling services, and I welcome similar developments in the armed forces.
I also urge upon the Minister—he may argue that this is gratuitous advice—the need to prepare plans to deal with the distress which must be afflicting many service men now as a result of what may well appear to some of them to be a somewhat uncertain future. I have seen similar distress, leading in some cases to illness, among those facing redundancy and unemployment in industry. I saw


that particularly when a large shipyard in my constituency collapsed with the loss of more than 4,000 jobs. If regiments are disbanded, or if there is a pretty drastic reduction in certain sectors of the armed services, those who have to leave will require, among other things, intelligent and compassionate counselling. Much can be learned from the counselling services established in large-scale industry in the United Kingdom, where plants —perhaps coal mines, shipyards and other major employers of labour—have had to put people out of work. That is a very serious matter.
I must say a few words about the children of service men. Cases of physical and sexual abuse involving such children are fortunately very rare. But, even if there are only a couple of cases a year, the victims and their families have to be treated as carefully and as sensitively as possible.
The Minister may not recall this fact, but during the Report stage of the Armed Services Bill—I think it was in late 1985—I put down a number of amendments that sought to give added protection to children caught up in such distressing circumstances who lived abroad in married quarters where service men were stationed. I am pleased to tell the House that the Minister with responsibility for the Army at that time gave me an assurance—I was perfectly willing to accept it and I withdrew the amendments—that, on the basis of the concerns that I had expressed, a memorandum had been sent to the commanders of all bases overseas and in the United Kingdom outlining the need to give the best advice and counselling available to those involved; not merely to the children but to the alleged perpetrators and the children's mothers.
It is crucial that developments in child protection legislation in the United Kingdom are matched in armed services legislation. I shall certainly keep a watchful eye on that when we next debate an armed services Bill.

Mr. Brazier: It may be of assistance to the House for it to know that the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, the services welfare organisation responsible for such work, and its professional staff pride themselves on the fact that they have pioneered some of the developments that are now also taking place in the wider community as a result of new legislation. It operates the type of fully-integrated set-up that we are now trying so hard to encourage in the wider community.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because I failed to mention SSAFA.
Without wishing to indulge in anecdotal prattle, may I say that the first time that I came across SSAFA was as a young military policeman. I had to attend a fatal traffic accident, in which a Scottish soldier had died in Germany. The representatives of SSAFA were utterly marvellous in the way that they gave guidance and help to the young soldier's family, who lived in the married quarters in Munster, Westphalia. Therefore, I have some experience of SSAFA's work, albeit abysmally dated.
It is a long time since I was in the armed forces—too long, perhaps. Nevertheless, I believe that those are important considerations. A former Army Minister readily acknowledged the concerns that I expressed on that earlier occasion. If I am fortunate enough to be a member

of the next Select Committee, I shall seek to cross-examine Ministry of Defence representatives on some of the topics that I have barely mentioned tonight.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his fond tribute to my friend and colleague, Sean Hughes.
If I ask that the order should not be considered until the Government are more candid about the case of Colin Wallace, it is because I believe that it involves basic issues of military discipline. It is less an issue of what happened to Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, the then Mr. Edward Short, and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) because, in general, politicians can look after themselves. The people who cannot look after themselves are those who are in the care of the state, as were those vulnerable boys at Kincora. It is a blemish of discipline that the Government have not been more forthcoming in giving a satisfactory explanation.
In case anyone supposes that just a very few of us are pursuing Colin Wallace's case obsessively, I may point out to the Minister that, together with the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), I was a speaker at the memorial meeting at the Guards and Cavalry club—not my usual habitat—for the late George Young, deputy head of MI6. On that occasion, and quite unprovoked by me—because I did not raise the subject—people expressed the view that it was important that the Colin Wallace case was straightened out. I will attempt to do so again tonight.
I refer to the Minister's letter to me of 20 June, in which he says:
In your speech during the Army Debate on 5 June you asked a number of detailed questions relating broadly to matters which have been the subject of various allegations by Mr. Wallace. Several of your questions relating to Kincora concern matters outside the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and I will confine my comments on that subject to repeating that I am aware of no substantive evidence that Army personnel knew in the 1970s that homosexual abuse of boys was taking place at Kincora.
Turning to your questions about Clockwork Orange, as my Written Answer to Michael Marshall on 30 January explained, two documents have been found which contain brief references to 'Clockwork Orange': both are dated 1975.
Incidentally, I have informed the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), who is Colin Wallace's Member of Parliament, of my intention to make this speech, and I believe that I have his approval. The Minister's letter continues:
No record has been found of any draft document containing the material which Mr. Wallace has described as an early version of 'Clockwork Orange'. Nor has any material been found which would justify allegations that Crown servants commissioned or authorised Mr. Wallace to create or use material denigratory to MPs, or engaged in such activities themselves. No correspondence between Mr. Broderick and General Leng on that subject has been traced: you will be aware of General Leng's firm assurance to the Government that he recalls no project by the name of 'Clockwork Orange' and would never have authorised any attempt to smear MPs. You also questioned the Government's position and official statements on this and other matters (including the security exercise near Aldergrove airport) in the light of press suggestions that contrary information may be possessed by former Crown servants who served in Northern Ireland at the same time as Mr. Wallace. I am not prepared to treat uncorroborated reports as being of substantive value. The Government has repeatedly made plain that, if anyone has substantive evidence which corroborates Mr. Wallace's allegations concerning a campaign by Crown servants to


smear MPs or a cover-up of knowledge of homosexual abuse of boys at Kincora, they should give it to the Government or the Police. To date no one has come forward with such information. Finally, the handling within the Government service of papers relating to Mr. Wallace has been the subject of a very thorough inquiry by a senior civil servant. The results of that inquiry have been reported to Parliament. It has been acknowledged that there were some shortcomings in the way that papers were handled, but the substantive errors of fact which resulted have been corrected by statements subsequently made by Ministers. Any suggestion that officials or Ministers acted in bad faith is wholly unjustified.
I think it fair to put that letter from the Minister on the record.
Part of the reason why I raised the issue last week, and am doing so again tonight, is that I shall send the Official Report of these proceedings to the master of Magdalene—as I have sent him previous reports—because David Calcutt should consider these matters as part of his inquiry. So the more formally they are put, the better.
On 3 July, Mr. Wallace, having studied the Minister's reply, wrote:
Thank you very much for sending me a copy of'
the Minister's reply
of 20 June regarding the questions which you raised during the Army debate. Quite frankly, I was furious when I read it. The letter is a disgraceful and deliberate attempt to evade every question you raised and it is clear from the wording of the reply that the Minister knew he was evading the issues. I don't know how you feel about it, but I think the Government should be told the reply is not acceptable and asked to deal with each one of the questions properly.
That is exactly how I feel.
For example, on the Kincora issue",
the Minister
claims that he is 'aware of no substantive evidence that Army personnel knew in the 1970s that homosexual abuse of boys was taking place at Kincora."'
I have put this letter in the possession of the Ministry of Defence and it should have reached the Minister's office.
As you know, there is ever growing evidence that what
the Minister
is saying is completely untrue, and that he knows that it is untrue. On 18 March this year, The Correspondent published a report which included the following comment from Mr. Hugh Mooney, Information Adviser to the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland from 1971–73:
Mr. Mooney also admitted that Mr. Wallace had told him about the sex scandal at Kincora boys home in Belfast—casting further doubt on Government claims that the security forces had no knowledge of the long-running rape and buggery of children in care'.
Similarly, in the transcript of the tape-recorded telephone conversations between General Leng and Barrie Penrose, General Leng confirms that he was 'aware of the homosexual insinuations' relating to Kincora and he also remembers saying 'this is a police matter, not ours.'
On a point of journalistic principle, Mr. Penrose has given up his job with The Sunday Times on this very issue.
The letter goes on:
Mike Taylor has also gone on record saying that he recalls seeing the Kincora file at Army Headquarters and, in particular, the two key documents which I had in my possession and which are referred to in Paul Foot's book, Who Framed Colin Wallace?
In addition, Peter Broderick has confirmed that he recalls seeing the memorandum which bears in his own handwriting the words 'Clerks IP' and which refers to William McGrath running a home for children on the Upper Newtownards Road. The document also gives the telephone number and full postal address of Kincora.
Lastly, there is the information provided by 'James', the Army Intelligence Officer who appeared in the BBC 'Public Eye' programme, and who has since confirmed to other journalists that, not only was he aware of the assaults that were taking place in Kincora, but also that his MI5 superior,

Ian Cameron, stopped him from taking further action. Worse still, despite negotiations between the RUC and the MOD, MI5 refused to make Ian Cameron available for interview by the police and failed to answer their questions.
The letter goes on to say that the Minister's
reply to you on this issue is, therefore, despicable. The rest or'
the Minister's
letter is so outrageous that it is difficult to comment on it seriously. However, the following points need to be made:
1. The Minister again avoids facing up to the issues which you raised during the Army Debate by trotting out the Government's standard line of defence: 'The Government has repeatedly made it plain that, if anyone has substantive evidence which corroborates Mr. Wallace's allegations concerning a campaign by Crown servants to smear MPs or a cover-up of knowledge of homosexual abuse at Kincora, they should give it to the Government or the Police'. That is precisely what I did do in 1984 when I sent a complete dossier of information to the Prime Minister personally, but no action was taken on its contents. Similarly, you will recall that I recently sent to the Prime Minister a selection of documents bearing the handwriting of various Crown servants and containing information smearing political figures. Although the Government does not deny the authenticity of the documents, the Defence Secretary claims there is no evidence to suggest the material was intended for dissemination to anyone. How utterly absurd!
I say to the Minister that I am not making a party issue of this. I was deeply shocked to see the imprimatur of the Army headquarters at Lisburn on an absolutely disgusting article in relation to the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
The letter continues:
2. The Government has repeatedly assured the House that the 'fullest inquiries' have been carried out into my allegations. Despite that claim, the Government has refused to arrange for individuals such as Mike Taylor or Peter Broderick to be interviewed about the statements they have made to the press corroborating my allegations. The Goverment has a clear duty to carry our such enquiries and it is no use Ministers claiming that such witnesses should submit their own statements to the authorities. Such claims are totally dishonest, and Ministers know very well they are being dishonest when they refuse to face up to this issue.

Mr. Maginnis: I feel that I have a responsibility to intervene at this stage. No one can fail to admire the hon. Gentleman's tenacity in pursuing the Kincora case, which has disturbed every hon. Member. In so far as he pursues it within the scope of this debate, I hope that he will make it clear that he is not insinuating that the serving forces in Northern Ireland were involved in the Kincora scandal. If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one might assert that this is somewhat outside the scope of the debate and could reflect badly on our serving forces. No hon. Member would wish that to happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been following the debate carefully, and I understand that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is asserting that matters of discipline impinged on employees or people responsible to the Ministry of Defence. To that extent, the matter is relevant to the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to agree strongly with the first point made by my hon. Friend, if I may call him such. It is true that most of the Army were clean, and some of thern are very shocked—including some of those whom I met tonight, who were senior officers in Northern Ireland in the 1970s—that this happened. It is no part of my case to denigrate the overwhelming majority of the British Army.
On the hon. Gentleman's second proposition, I was under the understanding that this is a debate on discipline and those who are answerable to the Ministry of Defence. I hope to heaven that certain sections of the security services in military intelligence are answerable to the Ministry of Defence. One of the worries is that discipline was not nearly tight enough.

Mr. Maginnis: That is the point.

Mr. Dalyell: That is very much the point. Indeed, it is the central point.
In all the argument between General Leng and Mr. Penrose, it is difficult to clarify matters. However, the central difficulty is that some of us think that military intelligence was not nearly as responsible to the Ministry of Defence as it jolly well should have been.
The letter continues:
In paragraph 2 of his letter, Archie Hamilton claims General Leng has given the Government an assurance that he `recalls no project by the name of "Clockwork Orange".' That is totally false. In interviews with the press, including the one with Barrie Penrose, the General confirmed that he did recall `Clockwork Orange' but, quite rightly, says he did not know about its political content.
That is highly germane to the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) intervened.
The letter continues:
4. Also, in paragraph 2 of his letter, the Minister says: `No record has been found of any draft document containing the material which Mr. Wallace has described as an early version of "Clockwork Orange".' The Minister could clear up this issue very easily by asking Lt. Colonel Railton and Penny Sadler, the MI5 officer who typed the document, if they recall it. It is, of course, possible that no record of the document exists because all such records have been destroyed, but the Government could, without much effort, find out if it was produced at Army HQ in 1974 and typed by a member of MI5. That was, after all, what your questions in the Army Debate were designed to establish.
5. Finally, the last paragraph of Mr. Hamilton's letter does not explain how a number of senior MOD officers—General Garrett, General Rous, Mr. Whitehead etc—failed to draw Minister's attention to the fact that Government replies were, from their own personal knowledge of my case, inaccurate. Their failure to advise Ministers accordingly strikes at the very heart of the credibility of the 'senior civil servant's report' to Parliament.
That is the letter on 3 July.
On 8 July, Mr. Wallace wrote again. I have not yet given this letter to the Ministry of Defence. He says:
Thank you very much for sending me the copy of Hansard containing your speech during the Northern Ireland (Direct Rule) Debate on 5 July. I think the speech was excellent and, supported by the one made by Ken Livingstone, it brought into focus the Government's failure to address the issues under discussion.
I apologise for returning yet again to the answers provided by Mr. Archie Hamilton"—
who is present tonight—
but I think they are significant in that they demonstrate in the clearest way possible the fact that, contrary to Government assurances to Parliament, Ministers are not only failing to tell the truth about the overall affair but also are failing to make even the most rudimentary checks into my allegations. In your speech last week, you correctly highlighted the fact that some three weeks after my allegation concerning Mr. Whitehead's role in typing the Haughey document, it would appear that no one had bothered to check the allegation with him.

It is not so much that the Ministry of Defence is being lazy, but that it has been told to put the shutters down. That is not good enough for the House of Commons.
The letter continues:
With your agreement, I would like to return to one specific matter which the Government could check out very easily if they are genuinely concerned about providing Parliament with accurate information on my case.
You will recall that in a letter dated 30 January this year, Archie Hamilton told Ken Livingstone:
`On 6 May 1988 you asked me about the involvement of Army Information Service Staff in the planting of hoax bombs and in the carriage of captured terrorist weapons or explosives. It is now apparant that you were referring to planned security exercises. Mr. Wallace has referred to Mr. CTT Whitehead"'—
who now, incidentally, is the press officer responsible for the prison service department, a highly sensitive department of the Home Office—
'having taken part in a mock raid on Aldergrove Airport; I understand that he took part in a security exercise in November 1973.""—
which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) may recall.
`Mr. Wallace has also suggested that fake CIA cards were carried; and I understand that such cards were carried on that occasion, for exercise purposes only. It is now unclear what was the full scope of the exercises, but they did include a test of vehicle check points en route to Aldergrove Airport. We have found no evidence that arms and ammunition captured from the IRA were carried. Nor have we found any evidence that any real explosives were planted.'
Comment: Why is it 'now unclear what was the full scope of the exercises'? The officer who planned the exercise was Major (now Major General) the Hon W E Rous. Why cannot the MOD ask the General to explain the details of the exercise?
Mr. Wallace then states that he
wrote to the Prime Minister on 6 February pointing out that Mr. Hamilton's reply was inaccurate and saying:
`Two of those who took part in the "raid", Mr. Michael Taylor, a former MOD official, and Miss Wendy Austin, a BBC journalist, have confirmed to Paul Foot and other reporters that captured IRA weapons, including rocket launchers, mortars, pistols and explosives were carried on that occasion. Moreover, as the MOD is well aware, we planted a bomb containing real explosive—but without a detonator—inside the headquarters of the UDR battalion guarding the airport and a "hoax" bomb on the Belfast/Ballymena railway line near Templepatrick. The latter device was blown up by an Army bomb disposal team'.On 16 February, the Prime Minister's Private Secretary,
Mr. Charles Powell, wrote saying:
`Statements made by Ministers to the House on these past events are naturally reliant on the material available in departmental records. Mr. Hamilton's letter of 30 January to Mr. Livingstone explained that the scope of the exercise at Aldergrove airport to which you refer is unclear at this distance in time: but that departmental records contain no evidence that captured weapons were carried nor that real explosives were planted.
It is not possible to offer comment on statements said to have been made to the media by Mr. Taylor or Miss Austin about the "mock" raid at Aldergrove airport, in the absence of direct knowledge of them. But if Mr. Taylor and Miss Austin have any information which they consider relevant they should pass it to the Ministry of Defence'.
I share Mr. Wallace's view when he comments:
It is nonsense to say that 'statements made by Ministers on these past events are naturally reliant on the material available in departmental records.' As I have pointed out above and in earlier correspondence with Ministers, the MOD does not have to rely on departmental records alone, there are


a number of senior Defence staff who have personal and direct knowledge of the events in question and who could help Ministers with their enquiries, should they wish to do so"—
or, more precisely, should Ministers wish them to do so.
Mr. Wallace again wrote to the Prime Minister on 21 February saying:
'In your reply you attempted to avoid dealing with the fact that you had misled Parliament and claimed that you cannot take notice of comments made in the Press by my former superior officers and colleagues. Such a claim is totally disingenuous because you have repeatedly told the House that there have been "the most thorough investigations" into my allegations. If that is correct, why have those investigations failed to interview those who took part in the raid on Belfast airport'?
That is a fair question. Time and again, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I received answers from the Prime Minister and other Ministers referring to thorough investigations. That really is a load of codswallop.
Mr. Wallace's letter of 8 July continues:
On 27 March, Ken Livingstone received the following Written Answer (Hansard Column 97):
`Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will direct his officials to interview Mr. Mike Taylor and Miss Wendy Austin about the full scope of their activities in Army Information Services in Northern Ireland in the 1970s'?
According to Mr. Wallace's letter, the Minister replied,
No. If Mr. Taylor or Miss Austin has information about activities in Northern Ireland which they feel to be of significance, they should submit it to the RUC or the Ministry of Defence.
In his letter of 20 June to me, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
You also questioned the Government's position and official statements on this and other matters (including the security exercise at Aldergrove airport) in the light of press suggestions that contrary information may be possessed by former Crown Servants who served in Northern Ireland at the same time as Mr. Wallace. I am not prepared to treat uncorroborated reports as being of substantive value.
Mr. Wallace went on to state that the Minister's replies are, to say the least, a hit on the dishonest side and that there can be no excuse whatsoever for his failure to have the allegations relating to Aldergrove airport checked with those who took part in the raid, particularly when they occupy even more senior positions in the services. He went on to state:
For example, when the Prime Minister and others were supplying the above replies to Parliament, Mr. Chris Whitehead was Chief Press Officer at the MOD—he is now head of PR for the Prison Service.
For a long time at any rate—I do not know whether the position has changed in the past week or two—Mr. Whitehead, according to the press, was not asked. They had not even bothered to ask people to whom it is very easy to put questions. I shall go on taking up the time of the House at awkward moments unless some effort is made on the part of the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office to do something to answer questions that can very easily be answered.
Mr. Wallace's letter went on to state:
During the raid, Mr. Whitehead carried a forged CIA identity card and a selection of weapons and explosives in his car. He was accompanied on that occasion by Miss Austin. I spoke to Miss Austin personally about two months ago and she recalls very clearly the details of that raid.
Similarly, the MOD could check with the Commanding Officer of the 9th Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment, in whose HQ we planted a bomb, and some of whose members found several of the weapons we were carrying.
The officer who organised the exercise and who arranged for captured weapons and explosives to be supplied to my

team was Major Willie Rous. When the above answers were being given to Parliament, he was Director of Army Public Relations at the MOD. He is now a Major General and Commandant of the Staff College, Camberley.
Presumably the Ministry of Defence knows how to get in touch with the commandant at Camberley.
Mr. Wallace said:
In addition, the overall exercise was supervised by Major General Leng, Commander Land Forces, personally. He was present at the UDR headquarters when the bomb which we had planted was discovered.
The Aldergrove airport exercise may seem to be a trivial point in comparison with Kincora and 'Clockwork Orange', but I regard it as a yardstick of the Government's credibility on the overall issue. Bearing in mind Government assurances to parliament on 30 January and 1 February that they were anxious to correct all previous misleading statements, it would be helpful if, by obtaining further admissions on the above, we could demonstrate that inaccurate information is still being given to the House and that Ministers are failing to take the most elementary steps to ascertain the correct facts even when specific issues are brought to their attention and when key witnesses are still in Government employment.
Mr. Wallace concluded that he thought that the Minister
should be pressed to explain the Government's excuse that they were only made aware that some of their previous answers about my case had been misleading, following the discovery of some papers last year. The inescapable fact remains that I submitted all the relevant facts to the Prime Minister personally in November 1984"—
I have seen the file, and it is thick and comprehensive—
and, it would appear, that neither Major General Garrett, Brigadier Rous nor Mr. Whitehead told Ministers that the information they were giving to Parliament was inaccurate. Similarly, Mr. Hamilton should be asked to explain why the Government's 'thorough inquiries' did not include those officers or others such as Penny Sadler, Michael Taylor, Peter Broderick or 'James', the Intelligence Officer who investigated Kincora.
You and the House have been very patient with me. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Hansard of this debate will go to the master of Magdalene, David Calcutt, who is undertaking an investigation. I hope that he will say that, in view of this and what happened last week, as a heavyweight lawyer and, in a sense, morally responsible to the legal profession in this matter, he will demand that his terms of reference be widened. Part of the reason for doing this is that I am a bit bothered that the terms of reference of the Calcutt inquiry in relation to Mr. Wallace are pretty narrow. They should be widened. Personally, I shall not complain too much if Mr. Calcutt does not produce the report oversoon. He has a mountain of work to do and a formidable task. He should apply himself to the wider aspects of this issue.
Finally—I make no apology to my colleagues—as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said in another context, in dealing with young boys and military discipline, this is an issue that is above Heath or Wilson or anything of that kind. The fact is that, for a long period and in a sustained way, sections of the British state—paid for by the taxpayer—countenanced the systematic abuse of boys, entrusted into the guidance of our state, who were highly vulnerable.
This is a moral issue and an issue of discipline. It will not go away, and the sooner candid answers are given, the better for all of us.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred to the leaflet that was issued in 1988 which


outlined the rights and responsibilities of service men. I can confirm that the leaflet has been updated and is issued to all new recruits. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the leaflet should be given to all service personnel, a point which was raised in the debate last year. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), told the House that, if that were done, we would have to issue 300,000 copies. All service men are made aware of their rights and responsibilities in information that is already widely distributed. As my hon. Friend said, I suspect that the leaflet, which covers a number of subjects in general terms, would, like so much of our mail, end up in the wastepaper bin. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the need for members of the services to have proper advice on their rights—

Mr. Boyes: I am interested in the Minister's suggestion that 300,000 copies seems such a lot. Does he accept that, when compared with every household receiving a copy of a national health service leaflet, we are talking about issuing only a small number of publications?

Mr. Hamilton: It is conceivable that the NHS leaflet would tell people something that they did not know already. Other than new recruits, members of the armed forces know well their rights and responsibilities. I am talking about the updated version. I can make it available later to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the rate of premature voluntary retirement. The number of people who are leaving the services early is causing us some concern at the moment. Fortunately, recruitment is holding up extremely well and we have a record number of recruits. Nevertheless, the number of those leaving the services is running ahead of the record numbers that we are managing to recruit.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to "Options for Change". Clearly there is a degree of uncertainty—of which we are well aware—but much detailed work remains to be done. We then hope to be able to announce our intentions to the House. That will do something to help to solve the present problem of uncertainty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to the present terrorist emergency and was concerned that our reserve forces are not able to carry out guard duties. He thought that some legislative change was necessary. That may be so. I should like to come back to him on that, having found out what the position is. A problem about reserve forces doing duties with firearms is that we must be confident that they are properly trained. We would not have the time to give them training on ranges to make us confident that they were competent in the use of firearms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood also mentioned that we have no legislative powers to force merchant seamen or civilian aircrews of chartered aircraft to go to war. We had a healthy response when the Falklands conflict arose. Indeed, several merchant seamen volunteered to go to the Falklands region even though they were under no coercion to do so. Their pay was somewhat enhanced to reflect that. I shall write to my hon. Friend on whether we need powers to force merchant seamen to go to war.

Mr. Wilkinson: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has undertaken to write to me on both issues. May I add that as part of his review under "Options for Change" hypothetically it must be possible that Her Majesty's Government will consider chartering civil assets to fulfil roles both in shipping and air transport which were previously fulfilled by the military. If that is the case, there is, at least prima facie, a good argument for considering seriously legislative provision even if historic experience in the Falklands campaign was a happy one.

Mr. Hamilton: I take my hon. Friend's point. I am not certain that "Options for Change" will lead to us depending more on chartering, but clearly it is a possibility. As he knows, chartering would be a critical element of any reinforcement plans in the event of a major war in Europe. We constantly examine whether there are enough merchant ships to fulfil the required functions.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised the case of a UDR soldier who took a photo-montage and was imprisoned by a civilian court for a year. Subsequently he could not return to his regiment. The hon. Gentleman described that as double jeopardy. One must accept that if there are mitigating circumstances—the hon. Gentleman said that there were —one must expect a court to take them into account. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to question the finding of the court. It is not our job to take up the finding of a court. We must recognise the independence of the judiciary and respect the sentences that are passed.

Mr. Maginnis: The Minister will realise that the peculiar circumstances in Northern Ireland make it necessary at times for people to enter into plea-bargaining arrangements. Our security forces have a political responsibility on their shoulders. That may not be widely admitted, but we know that it is the case. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who served as a Minister in Northern Ireland, nods in agreement. It is incumbent on soldiers to be political in their actions. The soldier in question was persuaded that it was circumspect to enter into a plea-bargaining arrangement, so there was no possibility of pleading mitigating circumstances. It is "Heads you lose, tails you do not win."

Mr. Hamilton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I believe that he is trying to draw me even further on the findings of our court. As he knows, there is a rule in the UDR that when one is convicted by any civil court one must leave the regiment. It is not a question of the soldier being tried again under military discipline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to the enormous amount of paperwork involved in getting into the Home Service Force, and I shall consider that problem. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the new management strategy and the necessity to achieve a balance between efficiency and paperwork. We are mindful of that and we must make certain that as much responsibility as possible is delegated to budget holders. The services are responding well to the challenge. It is necessary that they are given the freedom they need to exercise the discretion that should come with their new responsibilities. My hon. Friend also asked that the next armed forces Bill should take into account the changes in other legislation. It will do so, and it is important that it should.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) emphasised the need for adequate welfare and counselling services, upon which we concentrate. He also said that the services are facing an uncertain future. We recognise the need to end that uncertainty as soon as we can so that the services know the way ahead. It is rather alarmist, however, to talk about widespread redundancies. I do not think that that is the ball game, bearing in mind the large turnover and natural wastage of personnel in the services. The changes will be made between now and the end of the century and therefore there is plenty of time for those changes to be made without them resulting in redundancies.
The hon. Gentleman also made a good point when he said that we should not tolerate child abuse in the services, even if the incidence of it is small. I was grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury intervened to describe the role of SSAFA in dealing with that matter. I must come back to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about what provision is currently made to deal with that problem as I am not totally certain about it.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was, as always, courteous enough to tell me in advance that he intended to air again his concerns about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace and Kincora. Despite your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I admire his ingenuity in devising a basis upon which to introduce such matters into the debate. I cannot accept that the issues are directly relevant to the matters we are discussing. Many of the points raised were familiar ones that have been dealt with in the past. I shall, of course, look carefully at the record to see whether any new matters of significance were raised. If so, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about any that concern my Department. However, he is well aware that most matters concerning Kincora are properly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
On the question of documentary material, Mr. Wallace has provided extracts from a number of documents—he says that he wrote some of that material. I know of no evidence that he was ever given official authority to produce any material that intentionally denigrated Members of Parliament. If Mr. Wallace has any solid evidence that Crown servants were authorised to prepare or use material—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

ANIMALS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) ( Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved —[Mr. Lightbown]

Question agreed to.

AGRICULTURE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) ( Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock—Sheep, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION

Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of Inward Investment to Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Water Quality (Norfolk)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. John Garrett: In this brief and late debate I wish to raise a number of issues related to declining water quality that concern my constituents and those who live in the county of Norfolk. There are two main water problems in the county: first, a water shortage caused by population growth and low rainfall, so that rivers and fens are drying out because of over-abstraction; secondly, pollution that affects drinking water, coastal bathing waters, marine life, rivers and inland bathing waters. I shall deal with the second issue.
Water pollution incidents in East Anglia caused by farms, sewage and industry have risen by 60 per cent. since 1980, but only 2 per cent. of offenders have been prosecuted. The bulk of the prosecutions were for farm pollution. The recent National Audit Office report showed that silage effluent and slurry are major pollutants of water supplies because of
poor construction of silos and ineffective effluent management systems
but found that
farmers are reluctant to invest in systems without grant support.
East Anglia has high concentrations of nitrates because of the widespread use of fertilisers in farming. Even if no further fertilisers were used, nitrate levels would continue to rise because it takes up to 40 years for the chemical to seep through to the groundwater.
Five Norfolk boreholes, including Thorpe and Bowthorpe in the city of Norwich, were named by the European Commission in the indictment taking the British Government to court because they regularly exceeded the maximum recommendation of 50 mg per litre of water. Anglian Water has 25 derogations in force on nitrate and nitrite levels, but not for the Bowthorpe supply. Here lower levels are achieved by blending supplies from different sources but the environmental health department of Norwich city council is concerned about the effectiveness of blending.
The Government have responded to the concern about nitrates and last summer designated 12 nitrate-sensitive areas throughout the country where compensation will be paid to farmers who voluntarily reduce the amount of nitrates used on their crops. Amazingly, Norfolk, with the highest levels, is not one of them. At a further nine sites, three of which are in Norfolk, farmers will be encouraged, without compensation, to reduce the use of nitrates. Why are there no nitrate-sensitive area designations in Norfolk?
The Anglian Water region has by far the highest number of breaches of the maximum admissible concentration for combined pesticides. Water supplies in East Anglia are more contaminated by pesticides than those in any other part of the country. Anglian Water was the only company regularly found by the Department of the Environment to have concentrations above the EC limits of all seven pesticides tested for in its drinking water supplies. Mecoprop, atrazine, simazine, dimethoate and lindane were detected regularly at 20 out of 22 sites. Most of those are on the red list of inputs of dangerous substances to water. The 1987 report of the Select

Committee on Agriculture, dealing with the effects of pesticides on human health, made 45 recommendations, including one—No. 25—on ground water.
It stated:
If regions are found where serious contamination occurs, urgent action should be taken to moderate the use of offending pesticides.
What are the Government doing about that recommendation? Anglian Water is a major polluter. In 1986, 40 per cent. and in 1987 34 per cent. of Anglian Water treatment works tested breached their discharge contents—compared with an average of 23 per cent. and 21 per cent. in England and Wales. Anglian water is substantially the worst performing authority in this regard. In Norwich, much pollution is attributable to the decaying Victorian sewerage system. Storm drains carry raw sewage straight into the Wensum, putting the canoe training centre at Gibraltar gardens and swimming places at Bawburgh, Lyng, Earlham Park, Lakenham Cock, Hellesdon Meadow and many parts of the broads at risk. As no inland waters have been designated under the EC directive on the quality of bathing water, they are not sampled. Why are no inland waters designated when they are clearly used for bathing, as in this case?
Nearly five tonnes of mercury have been released into the Yare since 1976. About half of that is still in the river and the rest was swept out to sea. Mercury is not tested for in the coastal waters of Norfolk. No one realised that mercury was building up in the river bed until a local naturalist and diver carried out an examination and found the once thriving river severely affected.
Norwich city council environmental hazards committee recommended warning signs, but a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to Norwich environmental health officer thought that would "cause public disquiet." The fact that there was already public disquiet led me to ask a parliamentary question in May 1989 about the mercury levels in the River Yare. I was told that the levels were all above the EC limit. The fish are still contaminated and no one has taken action to warn the public, especially fishermen, of the hazard. Do the Government still think that warning notices about this and other pollutants cause disquiet?
In 1985 a public inquiry into the building of the Costessey Pits storage scheme was told by Anglian Water that it was necessary because of the ground water contamination and the "present and potential hazards" of abstracting water from the Heigham plant. Heigham is regularly monitored by the National Rivers Authority which says that it is "improving slightly". Nevertheless, on several occasions it has breached the EC standard for pesticides in drinking water.
In 1987, the Thorpe borehole was found to be contaminated with industrial solvents, one of which is on the red list. Anglian Water investigated the contamination and Norwich city council requested a copy of the report, but after three years it has still not received a copy, and it remains concerned about the condition of the water.
The EC requires member countries to safeguard their water aquifer supplies because they are difficult and expensive to treat once they have become contaminated. The EC has issued in a draft directive standards that most British waste tips fail to meet. Anglian Water depends on ground water for 51 per cent. of its water supply. Using an unpublished Government survey, Friends of the Earth located two toxic waste tips at Harford Bridges and West


Beckham near Cromer which are classified by the Department of the Environment as "serious" risks to ground water and no fewer than 48 other Norfolk tip sites pose some risk to ground water.
There is also a large question mark hanging over the Attlebridge tip, in which 100 BSE-infected cattle carcases have been dumped, and that could lead to the leaching of infected matter into the River Wensum. The farmer living near the tip has been advised not to drink the water from his borehole as it contains ammonia and industrial solvents. The tip is less than the 1 km from the river that is advised in the directive and drinking water for most of Norwich is extracted from the River Wensum. Why do the Government not insist on the lining of tips as recommended by the directive?
Otters have disappeared from the rivers Waveney, Yare, Little Ouse, Bure, Wensum and Glaven in the past 20 years. The cause appears to be PCBs which leak from hydraulic pumps, common on fenland rivers. Should not these pumps be banned and replaced?
Last year blue-green algae was found at three Norfolk sites—at Filby broad, Barton broad and Blickling lake. This year it has already reappeared at Blickling lake as well as at Ranworth, Salhouse, South Walsham, Filby and Hoveton great broad. The Minister said in this House that there were no significant increases in nutrients last year and that it is not possible to prevent algae as they are a naturally occurring phenomenon. The broads authority disagrees and has sent evidence to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution arguing for further EC action on water quality and Government action on research and on consent levels for polluting discharges and grants to control agricultural pollution. Have the Government responded to this concern? Where is the Anglian task force report promised by the Minister for the early summer in an Adjournment debate on Rutland Water in April?
The news that the EC is taking action against the British Government because 140 beaches, including three in Norfolk at Sheringham, Cromer and Great Yarmouth, failed to meet EC standards came four days after the go-ahead for the long sea sewage outfall at West Runton. People are astonished and angered at the decision, particularly as the Secretary of State promised in March that the discharge by pipeline of raw sewage into the sea would be phased out as soon as possible. As the local paper put it:
Anglian Water were tight-lipped in the wake of the announcement from Mr. Patten".
A similar scheme at Fleetwood in Lancashire was refused and yet, after tremendous public protest, including 9,000 letters, it has been decided that the West Runton outfall goes ahead.
It comes as no surprise to hear that so many beaches fail the EC directive. Those of us who have studied the bathing water survey have been struck by its cursory nature and answers to parliamentary questions have been less than satisfactory. The directive lays down mandatory limits for total and faecal coliforms tested at fortnightly intervals in the bathing season, and states that no salmonella or enteroviruses should be present. It also states that there should be no abnormal colour change, no visible film or foam and no odour, with further checks if it is thought that heavy metals, cyanides, nitrates and phosphates, pesticides or ammonia are in the water as well as floating waste. The directive expresses the hope that member states will endeavour to observe the guidelines. We do not. Of

Norfolk's nine designated bathing beaches, only Mundesley meets the mandatory standards, and none meets the recommended guidelines. Wells, Mundesley arid Great Yarmouth North were never tested for salmonella or enteroviruses. Heacham and Hunstanton were tested five times, but the other beaches only twice. Great Yarmouth pier and South beaches failed all tests except one.
The popular beaches at Caister, Hemsby, Corton arid Pakefield, with their caravans, bungalows and holiday camps, are not designated and therefore not tested; yet Caister has a sewage outfall pipe. Why are bathers not informed of the health dangers of beaches so that they know which resorts to avoid? I have never received satisfactory answers to parliamentary questions that I have tabled asking whether Anglian Water has tested bathing water for the chemicals and heavy metals mentioned in the directive.
According to the 1988 Eastern Sea Fisheries district report, there is evidence of a
major pollutant threat to the shellfish industry and also to the environmental wellbeing in this area. Despite such warnings being given and repeated … little has been done to improve sea water quality.
There are closure orders on mussel beds in the Wash, and all mussels from the Norfolk coast marketed in the United Kingdom are now subject to prior cleansing.
Discharges of glycol by the offshore gas industry in the Bacton area are thought to be responsible for the deaths of sea birds. The RSPCA has found mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins in the bodies of the many birds found on the Norfolk beaches. Those chemicals undermine their immune systems, and, in 1988, appeared to have allowed the bacterium paramyoxena to infect seals with the distemper virus that killed them in such large numbers off the north Norfolk coast.
Until we admit that the problems exist, we cannot implement solutions. The Government resist decisions made by the North sea conference, and contend that marine life is not affected by industrial waste and sewage sludge. They prefer to listen to the CBI, which has urged them not to agree to the phasing out of dumping of industrial waste because of the cost, and to Anglian Water, which contends that dumping is an economic and efficient way of dealing with sewage sludge.
While the Department of Health warns people not to eat shellfish, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that they are safe. While the Department of the Environment reassures us about drinking and bathing water, the European Commission takes the Government to court for failing to implement the directives.
In the run-up to privatisation, there was a complete clampdown on information. An Anglian Water scientist was prevented from presenting a paper on pollution data to a conference on agricultural pollution. For some months, both the Countryside Commission and I were even refused a list of the sites of special scientific interest in Anglian Water ownership; surely that was a modest enough request.
The pollution inspectorate is understaffed and under-resourced. The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring water quality, but does not enforce that responsibility adequately. The shortage of environmental health officers and money impairs the ability of local authorities to fulfil their duties.
We need far more openness and public information on these matters. Data on pollution should be publicly available; warning notices should be put up. There should be a programme to eliminate the filth from our rivers and bathing waters. The quality of water is a matter of increasing public concern.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has made a wide-ranging speech. In the few minutes that remain, I shall try to summarise the action that we are taking in the affected areas.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to maintaining high standards of water quality, and to securing the necessary improvements where existing standards are below what we would wish. We now have in place the right regulatory system to achieve that. The separation of the regulator from the operator was a key feature of the privatisation of the former water authorities. We have established a National Rivers Authority, which is widely recognised as perhaps the strongest environmental protection agency in Europe. We have two other regulators, the Director General of Water Services and the drinking water inspectorate. That separation also means that the private sector water service companies are now in a position to raise the substantial capital sums necessary to improve drinking water quality and waste water treatment.
Some £14 billion is due to be spent by the water service companies during the next 10 years on drinking water. But I emphasise that already most supplies in the country, including Norfolk, regularly meet the stringent requirements of the EC drinking water directive, and our drinking water regulations which, in some respects, impose still tighter standards.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned nitrates. I can confirm that most drinking water supplies already meet the standards required, but the water industry is actively working to ensure that the remainder do so as quickly as possible, either through the blending of water supplies or through nitrate removal plants.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned nitrate sensitive areas and nitrate advisory areas, three of which are in Norfolk. They will help to give us and the National Rivers Authority the necessary experience in tackling nitrate concentrations in drinking water. All the areas were chosen, on the advice of the NRA, to provide a range of farming types and geology. Decisions on what sort of measures would be taken in each area were based on where results could best be obtained. This is the first scheme of its kind in the country and we shall be monitoring progress closely with the object of learning how best to tackle nitrate concentrations. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Anglian Water has assured us that all supplies in Norfolk should comply with the EC nitrate standard by the end of 1994.
On pesticides, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government's medical advisers do not regard the trace amounts of pesticides that have been revealed by extensive monitoring as a danger to public health. The precautionary standards for pesticides in the EC directive are not

based on toxicological data and we have formally requested a review of those standards. But it obviously still remains an aim to reduce such instances of pesticides in drinking water as far as practicable.
The water companies and the NRA carry out extensive monitoring. The NRA routinely monitors the concentration of dangerous substances in water courses and the water companies are responsible for monotoring the quality of the water that they supply in accordance with the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.
Therefore, we are committed to ensuring that the standards are met wherever that is technically possible. Again, Anglian Water has submitted undertakings to the Secretary of State to comply with the pesticides standards throughout Norfolk by the end of 1995.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned waste disposal sites. The NRA is in close contact with the waste regulation authorities over those sites that are believed to present a risk of causing water pollution. The lining of existing landfill sites may not be possible, but the Environmental Protection Bill, currently before Parliament, sets higher standards and brings in a stricter licensing regime. It may well be that in those areas where the geology is not suitable the lining of new landfill sites will become far more common.
The hon. Gentleman rightly made considerable play in his speech about the need for public information. We remain committed to the principle of the widest possible public access to environmental information. Perhaps I can demonstrate that by reference to bathing waters—another of the issues that he mentioned. He complained that not enough beaches in East Anglia, and particularly in Norfolk, came up to EC standards for the quality of coastal waters.
Generally, British bathing waters are nowhere near as bad as some people would have it. We have identified 440 bathing waters under the EC directive, and three quarters of them now meet EC standards. I hope that local authorities will now act to bring those beaches up to the higher standards required for their designation as blue flag beaches. There are a number of such beaches on the East Anglian coast. Earlier this week I visited a beach at Lowestoft which comes up to EC standards for the quality of its bathing waters. Also I was glad to see that the local authority had provided public conveniences and information boards and had kept the beach free of litter.
As regards the voluntary provision of information to visitors, we encourage local authorities to provide information on public notice boards, and there is nothing to stop them doing so. The National Rivers Authority already makes that information and the raw testing data available on public registers and it is now up to interested voluntary bodies and local authorities to disseminate that information as widely as they wish.
The water industry throughout the country expects to spend some £3 billion on measures specifically designed to ensure that bathing waters meet the EC directive standards, and on implementing the recently announced policy that, in future, all significant discharges of sewage to coastal waters or to estuaries should first receive treatment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of specific bathing waters in the area. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Yarmouth. Great Yarmouth south, Sheringham and Cromer are three bathing waters that fail


the test. All of them are now covered by improvement schemes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—as I think we can all agree—that too many of our beaches fail the test.
In the past, Governments of all parties failed to give water treatment in coastal areas the attention and investment that it deserved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is no longer the case, and that we have an ambitious investment programme in train, which is to be carried out by water service companies. It is not always easy to put in place the complex engineering and technical plant, particularly as planning issues may arise.
Our programme should bring all our coastal waters up to EC standards well before the end of the decade. I do not believe that appearances before the European Court of Justice can accelerate that process.
The hon. Gentleman asked why inland bathing waters have not been designated for the purpose of the directive. The simple answer is that we are satisfied that no inland waters at present meet the criteria for identification, which involves much more than a simple test of whether people bathe there. Local environmental health officers may monitor water quality at such places and make the information publicly available, and the hon. Gentleman may encourage them to do so.
As to river quality in Norfolk, the rivers there are, in common with the rest of the country, of good or fair quality. Throughout the United Kingdom, 95 per cent. of rivers are of good or fair quality, which compares favourably with the situation in Europe, where we believe that only 75 per cent. of rivers are of comparable quality.
Privatisation of the water industry has enabled us to plan for further improvements. The water industry will be spending about £11 billion over the next 10 years on

improving its sewage treatment works and the sewerage system generally. Anglian Water's investment programme will amount to some £1.5 billion during that period.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned high levels of metal contamination of the River Yare. In the early 1980s, elevated levels of mercury in that river were traced to a pharmaceutical works in Norwich, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that mercury is no longer being discharged by the company concerned, and concentrations in the river are regularly below the limit of detection. Concentrations in sediments have reduced dramatically—though, inevitably, sediments take longer to clear. Fish taken from the River Yare now meet the EC's requirements for mercury levels, and the results of the NRA's monitoring of water quality in the river are available for inspection on the public registers that the authority maintains. I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman if he is suggesting that there is any secrecy. Not only is monitoring undertaken but the results are available to the hon. Gentleman and to other members of the public.
I am not complacent about river quality in Norfolk or anywhere else. There remains much to be done, but we have in place a highly ambitious investment programme and the right administrative structure to ensure that it is successful. The new water service companies have access to the necessary capital required. We can look forward to a gradual but further improvement in water quality—not only for drinking but of waste water. That will lead in turn to cleaner beaches.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.